information note on comments received on the working … · 2015-12-24 · 2 considerations on the...
TRANSCRIPT
Document 1
Information Note on Comments received on the Working Background Text on Indicators for the Seven Global Targets of the
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
The Information Note includes comments to the Working Background Text released on 23 October and is to be read in conjunction with “Technical Collection of Issue Papers on Indicators for the Seven Global Targets of the Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction”.
23 December 2015
The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
1
Contents
Considerations on the feedback received .............................................................................................. 2
(a) Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2
(b) Summary points for further consideration ............................................................................. 2
(c) Common issues to all or several targets ............................................................................... 11
Target A: Substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030, aiming to lower average per
100,000 global mortality between 2020-2030 compared to 2005-2015. ............................................ 27
Target B: Substantially reduce the number of affected people globally by 2030, aiming to lower the
average global figure per 100,000 between 2020-2030 compared to 2005-2015. .............................. 33
Target C: Reduce direct disaster economic loss in relation to global gross domestic product (GDP) by
2030. ..................................................................................................................................................... 48
Target D: Substantially reduce disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic
services, among them health and educational facilities, including through developing their resilience
by 2030. ................................................................................................................................................. 67
Target E: Substantially increase the number of countries with national and local disaster risk
reduction strategies by 2020. ............................................................................................................... 77
Target F: Substantially enhance international cooperation to developing countries through adequate
and sustainable support to complement their national actions for implementation of this framework
by 2030. ................................................................................................................................................. 86
Target G: Substantially increase the availability of and access to multi-hazard early warning systems
and disaster risk information and assessments to the people by 2030................................................ 96
2
Considerations on the feedback received
(a) Introduction
The Information Note summarizes all comments by countries and non-state stakeholders expressed
orally during the 1st informal and formal sessions as well as through written comments. Comments
on the Target C paper released on 11 November and the Target E paper released on 17 November
are also integrated into the report.
The Information Note is recommended to be read in conjunction with the “Technical Collection of
Issue Papers on Indicators for the Seven Global Targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction”, which compiles the technical work of UNISDR as a “Readers’ Guide”, including (a) list of
indicator details explaining definition, meta data, limitation and linkages with SDGs (originally
submitted to the 1st session as Annex B of Background Paper on Indicators), (b) Concept note on
methodology to estimate direct economic loss for Target C indicators (initially posted on
Preventionweb on 11 November with the deadline for comments set at 30 November), (c) Concept
note on methodology to estimate progress of national and local DRR strategies for Target E
indicators (originally posted on Prevetionweb on 17 November as a background document), (d)
suggested critical infrastructure categorization to measure Target D (newly introduced), (e)
suggested list of hazard for the purpose of measuring Sendai Global Targets (newly introduced) and
(f) Suggested basic set of requirements for recording and reporting disaster loss from countries to
UNISDR in order to monitor the Targets (a) through (d). It is also recommended to read "Concept
Note on Indicators for Global Target F of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction"” posted
on preventionweb on 10 December 2015.
(b) Summary points for further consideration
Comments provided by countries and non-state stakeholders allowed for the identification of the
discussion points in the Second Session of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working
Group (OIEWG). Based on the comments, a suggested course for UNISDR’s work could be
determined to support the discussion of the countries and stakeholders. The following table
attempts to summarize the questions that have emerged, in order to support further discussions by
the OIEWG.
Common issues to all or several targets
Issue Discussion points Technical considerations by the Secretariat
Scope of indicators
• Scope of hazards for the purpose of measuring the Sendai targets
• Need for clearly defined and standardized list of hazards
• Threshold for data recording
For the scope of hazards, please see Suggested list of hazard measured for the purpose of measuring global targets of the Sendai Framework (Appendix D of
3
Technical Collection) It is suggested that to respond adequately to the scope of the Sendai Framework no threshold should be adopted. Please see Suggested Basic Set of requirements for recording and reporting disaster loss (Appendix E of Technical Collection).
Data recording and reporting
• Data recording per event or summarized annual data?
• Baseline development guideline
It is suggested to record data per event for further analysis. Please see Suggested Basic Set of requirements for recording and reporting disaster loss (Appendix E of Technical Collection) For supporting recording disaster loss data in the past, present and future, National Disaster Loss Database Guideline needs to be developed.
Headline (core)indicator at global level and sub-element indicator at national level
• Which can be global core indicators and which can be national indicators?
• Need for clear synthesizing methodology for global core indicator
Indicator A1: Summation Indicator B1: to be developed Indicator C1: Appendix C of Technical Collection Indicator D1: to be developed Indicator G1: to be developed
Disaggregated data
• Should disaggregation be up to national level?
It is recommended that indicators on mortality and affected people are disaggregated by age, sex and disability at the national level in order to inform better policy and decision making. However it is unlikely, that consistent global level, disaggregated disaster loss data will be available in the short term to establish the baseline (2005-2015) necessary to monitor targets (a) and (b). Please see Suggested Basic Set of requirements for recording and reporting
4
disaster loss (Appendix E of Technical Collection).
Normalization • Need guideline to make the distinction between small or large scale events and implement normalization
Normalization guideline needs to be developed.
Terminology and indicators
• How to assure consistency? Terminology and definition used in indicators should be consistent but might be different. The definition of indicators should be guided by considerations of measurability and practicality.
SDG coordination
• Needs coordination with SDG process Sendai related indicators are categorized as “pending” indicators by the IAEG.
Others • Need for methodology paper
UNISDR needs to further develop Technical Collection to support countries.
Target A
Discussion points Technical considerations by the Secretariat
A1 Include direct death only? Include also indirect death? • Time frame issue
Suggested to monitor direct death only due to measurability concern. Time frame should be clarified in disaster loss database guideline (to be developed)
A1 One single A1 or separate indicators A2 andA3?
Suggested to record A1, A2 and A3 due to the difference of data quality and significant number of the missing for certain hazards.
A1 How to differentiate death and missing? • Time frame issue
Time frame should be clarified in disaster loss database guideline (to be developed). However, the definition of missing is usually different across countries and defined by their laws or regulations. It might be better to leave the definition to national government.
A1, A2 Death? Diseased? Killed? Fatalities?
A1, A3 Missing? Missing persons? Presumed dead?
A1 100,000 is total population or exposed population? Suggested to be total population. Discussion in
5
Informal Working Group on Targets and Indicators assumed it to be the total population.
Target B
Discussion points Technical considerations by the Secretariat
B1 Add “hazardous event” to harmonize with indicator A1?
Suggested to add for consistency.
B1 Directly affected only OR both directly and indirectly affected?
Suggested to monitor directly affected only due to measurability concern.
B1 One composite indicator or retain separate indicators? -Different data quality of sub-elements -Double counting
Suggested to record both core indicator and sub-element indicators due to the need for summary indicator as well as sub-element indicators’ difference of data quality and potential for policy implication.
B1 100,000 is total population or exposed population? Suggested to be total population. Discussion in Informal Working Group on Targets and Indicators assumed it to be the total population.
B2 Definition of ill/injured
B3 Difference between displaced, evacuated and relocated -Evacuated (Temporarily) or Relocated (permanently)?
Difference should be clarified in disaster loss database guideline (to be developed)
B3 Place of residence or home?
B3 Add “places where they are”? Where the evacuees evacuated from are not often recorded in disaster loss database.
B3a Time frame for recording the evacuated • Temporal evacuation can be permanent
Time frame should be addressed in disaster loss database guideline (to be developed)
B3a, B3b
Evacuation and relocation: Preventive pre-event or post-event with degree of compulsion
Suggested to record only post-event evacuation and relocation because usually disaster loss database counts number of the evacuated and relocated due to event.
B3a, B3b, B3c
Number or percentage of “exposed people”? Suggested to retain “numbers”. “Exposed people” is technically difficult to
6
measure.
B4, B5
House? Dwellings? Or homes?
B4, B5
Should B4 and B5 be merged? Many countries have disaggregated data.
B4 Definition of houses “damaged” • Degree of damage
The degree or definition of damage should be suggested in national disaster loss database guidelines (to be developed). However, the definition is usually different across countries as housing damages are often linked with compensation or recovery subsidy and defined by their laws or regulations. It might be better to leave the definition to national government.
B6 “Received” or “required”? Suggested to retain “received” because it is technically difficult to measure “required”.
B6 Food relief aid only or aid including food and medical aid?
B6 Applicable to all hazards or only applied to drought? Suggested to be applied to all hazards.
- Can we create indicators to monitor people whose livelihood is affected?
Linkage with Target D indicators should be further elaborated.
B3c, B7
Add? “Protected” in B3c needs to be clarified and defined.
B8, B9
New proposals Concern on technical difficulties to monitor B8 and B9
Target C
Discussion points Technical considerations by the Secretariat
C1 Include “indirect loss”? Target C clearly addresses “direct “economic loss.
C1 One composite indicator or retain separate indicators? -Different data quality and needs of sub-elements
Suggested to record both core indicator and sub-element indicators due to the need for summary indicator as well as sub-element indicators’ difference of data quality and potential for policy implication.
7
C1 Replacement value methodology or else? Replacement cost method recommended. Please see the concept note on methodology to estimate Target C indicators (Appendix A of Technical Collection)
C2 Scope of agriculture loss. Expand to include fishery, forestry, Poultry and else?
Need to develop methodology for forestry and poultry if included. Fisheries might be national indicators due to technical difficulty and different importance in each country.
C3, C4
Definition of industrial/commercial facility Suggested to use ISIC classification
C3, C4
Data exist? Can countries utilize private sector data?
C3, C4
Number of facilities destroyed, damaged or closed, as well as associated physical damage costs?
Estimating associated physical damage costs would be national level indicators (difficult to universalize the counting methodology).
C5, C6
Merge, delete or retain? It is suggested to retain indicators as they are, because the housing damage and destruction are the most recorded data and also very important in terms of economic loss.
C7 “Critical infrastructure” or “public infrastructure”? “Critical infrastructure” is recommended from the concern on the linkage with Target D.
C7 Add “social services” or basic services? It is technically difficult to globally measure economic cost of basic service interruption.
C7 Scope of critical infrastructure It is suggested to monitor economic loss of health, education and road infrastructures due to data availability concern. Please see Appendix A and B of Technical Collection
C8-C10
Delete? Concern on technical difficulties to monitor C8 through C10
C11, C12
New proposals Concern on data availability for C11 and technical difficulties to monitor C12
8
- Suggest revisiting computation methodology paper Appendix A of Technical Collection
Target D
Discussion points Technical considerations by the Secretariat
D1 Widen the scope of “critical infrastructure”? It is suggested to start monitoring health, education and road infrastructures at global level due to concerns on data availability and the universal importance. Please see Appendix B of Technical Collection.
D1 List of critical infrastructure left to each country or globally defined?
Same as above.
D2, D3 D4
Definition or threshold of “damage” The degree or definition of damage should be suggested in national disaster loss database guidelines (to be developed). However, the definition is usually different across countries as the damages are often linked with subsidy and defined by their laws or regulations. It might be better to leave the definition to national government.
D2, D3 D4
Damaged and destroyed should be separated? It is suggested to disaggregate as much as possible. Please see the description of indicator C7 in Appendix A of Technical Collection.
D2, D3 D4
Size or type of facilities should be considered? It is suggested to disaggregate as much as possible. Please see the description of indicator C7 in Appendix A of Technical Collection
D4 Scope of “transportation infrastructure” It is suggested to start monitoring road infrastructures at global level due to concerns on data availability and its universal importance as transport infrastructure. Please see Appendix B of Technical Collection.
9
D5 “Number of time” or “Length of time (such as days, person-days)” or “number of people that have received basic service disruption”?
Balance between additional data recording and potential for policy implication by detailed data recording.
D5 Scope of “basic services” Scope of basic services could be consistent with the scope of critical infrastructure. Please see Appendix B of Technical Collection.
D6 to D9
Delete? D6 and D9 are input indicators. It could be difficult to globally define tourist infrastructures and security service structures for D7 and D8.
D10 to D12
New proposals The same issue as the scope of critical infrastructure. Please see Appendix B of Technical Collection.
Target E
Discussion points Technical considerations by the Secretariat
E1 Computation methodology for E1, setting minimum standard of DRR strategy and allowing quality measurement
Suggested to set minimum standard based on the paragraph 27 (b) of the Sendai Framework. Please see Appendix C of Technical Collection.
E2 Definition of local government It is suggested to define as “form of public administration at the lowest tier of administration within a given state, which generally acts within powers delegated to them by legislation or directives of the higher level of government”.
E2 Local DRR strategy in align with Sendai or national DRR strategy?
E3 Retain original or modify? (“climate and disaster risk” to “climate change” or others?)
It is suggested to retain “climate and disaster risk” to enhance visibility of the linkage with CC and DRR.
E3 Coordination with Climate Change, IPCCC
E4 Delete? E4 is an input indicator for Target D but can be addressed as part of E1.
E5-E7 Delete?
10
E9 Add or Delete?
E8, E10
Add?
E11-E16
New Proposals E11: New ten essentials will be finalized after conclusion of the OEIWG global indicator discussion E13 and E14: Need to develop methodology to track financing if adopted.
Target F
Issue Discussion points Technical considerations by the Secretariat
All In total, 24 indicators are proposed. Need to identify what should be monitored in the beginning
Based on the paragraph 19 (m) and 47, it is suggested to categorize international cooperation into 3 areas: finance, technology development and transfer, and capacity building. Proposed indicators by the Secretariat are listed in the Background Document “Concept Note on Indicators for Global Target F”.
Target G
Discussion points Technical considerations by the Secretariat
G1 Add “covering main hazards in the country”? Need to develop guideline how to identify main hazards in the country, if adopted.
G1 Computation methodology Computation methodology using indexation needs to be developed.
G2 Delete as covered by G1? While it is up to the definition of early warning system (EWS), G2 is one of four elements of EWS ((a)monitoring and forecasting system (G2), (b)risk assessment (G6), (c) communication and information delivery (G3) and preparedness for response (G4)). G1 will be headline
11
index summarizing progress of each of the four elements. It is suggested to retain four elements.
G3 Absolute number or proportion to population? Percentage might be more useful information to measure achievement, as the absolute number is different across countries.
G3 Disaggregation by target group (e.g. disability)? Disaggregation is surely useful information at country level but it might be technically difficult at global level.
G4 Percentage or number? Percentage might be more useful information to measure achievement, as the absolute number is different across countries.
G4 Local or national, or both?
G4 Add “standard operation procedures”?
G5 and G6
Replace “multi-hazard national risk assessment” with “risk information”?
“Disaster risk information and assessments” is the word in Target F and can be recommended.
G6 Percentage or number? Percentage might be more useful information to measure achievement, as the absolute number is different across countries.
G7-G10
Delete? G7: Technically difficult to measure. G8: Input for indicator G1.
G11-G13
New proposals G11 and G12: Technically difficult to measure. G13: Part of Target F?
(c) Common issues to all or several targets
Common issues to all or several targets have been clustered around: scope of indicators (paragraph
15), data recording, proposed structure of indicators as headline (core) indicator at global level and
sub-element indicators at national level, disaggregation (especially for Targets A and B),
normalization (outlier issues), coherence and SDGs and others issues.
12
1. Scope of indicators (paragraph 15)
State of Palestine: It would be important to have an indicator that points to unnatural
disasters, caused by humans.
Japan: We should focus on natural hazards.
Belarus: We should better define the term ‘disaster’. E.g. the number of minor disasters and
then the ministry in country will see what these types of disasters are.
Indonesia: In our case there are so many small-scale disasters that are the biggest source of
our losses.
El Salvador: It is important to look at both slow on-set and small scale disasters.
Inputs by countries:
Cuba: Man-made hazards were mentioned – we must be very precise to define all these
issues and scope.
EC: we have no full classification of hazards yet, but we will need this
El Salvador: ‘Hazard’ needs to reflect specifically what is in para 15, we don’t have conflict
mentioned anywhere in terminology, however how do we cover that concern.
• Italy: Italy recommends agreeing on a clearly defined and standardized list of hazards.
• Philippines: While [hazards] are natural or induced by human, what about those affected by
armed conflict?
• Sweden: The scope describes the risks that are included and that should be managed. The
phrase “as well as related environmental, technological and biological hazards and risk”
gives the impression that “environmental, technological and biological hazards and risks” are
those that arise simultaneously with or after the occurrence of either a natural event that
leads to a disaster, or a man-made disaster. If we intend it to mean this, then it must be
explicit so that it is clear to all parties that are implementing the Sendai Framework.
• Sweden: The scope of Sendai names natural hazards as well as related environmental
hazards. In the current terminology, it is difficult to make a clear distinction between the
natural hazards and environmental hazards. The definition of environmental hazard includes
examples like earthquakes and typhoon which we in Sweden categorize as natural hazards.
The comment under the definition (in working background text on terminology) says that
environmental hazards can include chemical, natural and biological hazards. This contributes
to confusion as to which events should be sorted under which category.
• Sweden: Sweden thinks that hazards caused with antagonistic intentions or interactions
should be excluded from the Framework.
13
• Sweden: Sweden agrees that the scope of national disaster loss databases must be broader.
This will be a challenge at least in the beginning. It might not be possible to create a baseline
for the years 2005-2015 with regard to technological and biological hazards.
• Sweden: Sweden agrees that no threshold should be adopted. The definition of disaster
more or less already includes a threshold. In the comments to the definition, it is stated:
“The impact may test or exceed the capacity of a community or society to cope using its own
resources, and therefore may require assistance from external resources”. The response
capacity is an important part of the definition of a disaster and needs to be considered. It is
very difficult to set a quantitative global threshold. Countries may be encouraged to set their
own thresholds in their national disaster loss databases.
• Switzerland: The development of national databases is a complex project. The extension of
the focus of the Sendai Framework on a wider set of hazards has consequences in terms of
data collection, which is both time and resource intensive, as well as domestic efforts, as a
data collection process must be defined within the member states from the local up to the
national level for each indicator and across sectors.
• Thailand: Classification of hazardous events should be added in terminology. It can be based
on IRDR’s Loss Database Standards (geology, hydrology, meteorology, climatology, biology,
extraterrestrial, etc). This could help us better communicate among ourselves.
• Ukraine: We consider that UNISDR and OEIWG may become the drivers for implementation
of the implications of the Global Assessment Report on DRR 2015, inter alia, in order to
highpoint the issue s of protection of environment in conflicts, identifying factors that would
manage risks impacts of natural hazards and technological and biological disasters in the
conflict areas.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
• UNECE: UNISDR recommends using the IRDR peril classification for hazards. The Task
Force sees a need to revise the classification for the following reasons: (a) Climatological,
meteorological and hydrological hazards are closely connected to each other and are not
mutually exclusive. There is a hierarchical relationship: Changes of the climate cause changes
in the meteorological patterns which include changes of the hydrological patterns. The
current classification leads to further problems in the sub-level “main event”. For example a
“drought” can be considered as a hydrological, meteorological or climatological
phenomenon. One practical solution could be to combine climatological, meteorological and
hydrological hazards in one single class. However, there might also be alternative solutions
and it is recommended to revise this part of the current classification. (b) Technological
14
events and accidents are missing (UNISDR is just working on that). It is recommended to not
distinguish between “natural hazards” and “man-made hazards” as all climate-change
related and biological hazards also have a man-made component. (c) The used classification
could consist of the following main elements (“Family” in the peril classification):
I. Climatological, meteorological and hydro-meteorological
II. Geophysical
III. Biological
IV. Extra-terrestrial
V. Technological (which includes industrial accidents and transport accidents)
Hazards are conceptually linked to recording “Extreme Events”, e.g. by WMO or IPCC.
Extreme events are usually defined by their statistical probability (out of the norm) rather
than by their impact. See also preamble. It is recommended to include in the final version of
the terminology document also the underlying classification (i.e. in this case the revised peril
classification).
• UNESCAP: Internationally agreed classifications and definitions would be required to ensure
the consistency and comparability both in terms of geographical and temporal. Refer to
ongoing efforts in ESCAP and EU to assist member States develop disaster-related statistics.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
• For the scope of hazards, please see Suggested list of hazard measured for the purpose of
measuring global targets of the Sendai Framework (Appendix D of Technical Collection)
• It is suggested that to respond adequately to the scope of the Sendai Framework no
threshold should be adopted. Please see Suggested Basic Set of requirements for recording
and reporting disaster loss (Appendix E of Technical Collection).
2. Data recording: per event, time frame, baseline etc.
Australia: “Type of disaster” could specify the principal hazard causing the disaster, but this
could also link to a unique event identifier.
Italy: Important to consider the quality of the data but also important to go forward.
US: We need to standardize evaluation and methodology and be mindful of data collection
constraints.
Inputs by countries:
• Colombia: It will be useful to set baselines as a starting point – 2010, 2015, etc. Many
countries don’t have this.
• Cuba: How can we facilitate data collection at the level of municipalities?
• EC: It is important to provide definitions with the temporal framework of the event and time
laps when the indicators are recorded, e.g. a preliminary record after 6 months, and closing
15
the event after one year. 1 year allows assessing the event, while avoiding unrealistic
updating.
• Italy: In general, Italy recommends introducing for all the indicators the temporal frame. It is
important to fix the period of the event that is considered and the time lapse.
• Italy: Italy proposes to pay attention, count and define the number of events occurred and
their intensity (level of gravity/magnitude) used to evaluate the indicators and therefore the
target. This is intended as a way to normalize the data, make them comparable and assure
the coherence among the different countries. This will guarantee a correct evaluation of the
target achievement.
• Madagascar: About the baseline of the data, on what year have we refer?
• Madagascar: We would want to not that collecting and submitting data need common
approach, common methodology and some tools.
• Morocco: It is important to use the same methodology and data tools by all countries.
Suggest identifying the tool and data methodologies that exist and decide which tool to use
for a specific indicator.
• Sweden: It is important to clarify whether countries should collect data per event or make a
summary per year. For example, one accident with 1 fatality is not a small scale disaster and
should therefore not be included according to Sendai. But if we count all the accidents of
this particular type occurring in one year and sum up the consequences, it could be included.
Sweden thinks it is important to collect data per event and not per year even though this can
be difficult for the slow-onset disasters.
• Sweden: (Regarding temporal issues) With the exception of multi-annual droughts and
perhaps some other slow-onset disasters decided by the OEIWG, Sweden disagrees with the
suggestion to sum up the loses on an annual basis. By doing this, many accidents and normal
diseases would be reported according to the framework. Sweden does not think that is the
intention of the Framework. Sweden agrees that it is necessary to clearly define the
timeframe for recording losses after single events.
• Sweden: Countries might need guidance regarding how the baseline data can be collected.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
• Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: We learned from the
HFA the importance of establishing a baseline as close to the start of the frameworks
implementation as possible. Without this, mid-term evaluation becomes ineffective and less
useful for the learning of implementers. We feel that while disaggregated data would be
useful, access to this retrospective data may be limited currently and this should not restrict
the collection of disaggregated data going forward which will serve as future baseline.
16
• UNESCAP: Regarding “hazardous event”, there is a need for clear method to define the
geographical expanse of the event without which the counting becomes imprecise. There is
the need for clear method to define the “beginning” and the “end” of the event without
which the counting becomes imprecise. There might be a scope to determine the “event”
temporal expanse to be extended to certain period to allow proper accounting of the
missing and injured persons.
• UNESCAP: Consider three categories: direct, attributed to, and associated with.
• UNESCAP: Consider mechanisms to reconcile death figures when the event affects more
than one country. Consider mechanisms to reconcile the figures when the event constitutes
more than one hazard or has cascading feature.
• UNESCAP: There is need to determine if the national loss databases are to report absolute
numbers, which following a global aggregation to be analyzed against global population data;
or the countries are to draw their own per 100,000 figures that, later, to be aggregated at
global level .
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
• It is suggested to record data per event for further analysis. Please see Suggested Basic Set
of requirements for recording and reporting disaster loss (Appendix E of Technical
Collection)
• For supporting recording disaster loss data in the past, present and future, National Disaster
Loss Database Guideline needs to be developed.
3. Proposed structure of indicator: Headline (core) indicator at global level and sub-element
indicators at national level
Czech Republic: Not all the indicators necessarily need to be included in the evaluation of
Sendai targets on a global level but have a great value on a national and local level. The
more detailed indicators we develop, the less comparable they will be on global level. The
most important is to ensure the consistent methodology of data gathering and evaluation on
national scale in time to evaluate trends than the very detailed definitions aiming at global
uniformity.
Czech Republic: We need to keep global indicators as simple as possible. To simplify this
indicator, the indicators could be limited to those that are easily collected at the global level
while greater detail can be applied at the national level.
17
Inputs by countries:
• Canada: Tired approach. We recommend that the OEIWG take a streamlined and tiered
approach to the indicators. For example, establish “core” indicators for each target that
would measure global progress and establish additional indicators to be implemented
voluntarily for use at national level, according to needs and circumstances. This streamlined
approach would be complementary to the broader Agenda 2030/sustainable development
goals indicators, not duplicative and should be finalized once there is greater clarity on the
SDG indicators;
• EC: Need for clear aggregation methodologies for each target, to come to a single composite
indicator that can be used to assess whether the target is reached or not. Request UNISDR to
develop proposals before the next meeting, similar to the proposal developed for Target C.
• EC: Avoid full enumerations in the indicator definition (e.g. hazards, sectors, infrastructure
types, services, etc). Agree on minimum enumeration if necessary, but leave it to Member
States to define at national level, based on practices and legislation. Request development
of global guidelines.
• EC: EC is in general in favor of more indicators, as they encourage evidence based DRR
policies, but recognizes the need for balancing with the reporting burden.
• Italy: With regard the indicators of all targets, it is important to elaborate each indicator
separately because in many cases there could be issues in collecting information and
therefore the quality of indicators can be different. It is possible to consider having synthetic
composite indicators. In this case, it is necessary to make all the possible efforts to propose a
standard and common statistical methodology to create composite indicators in order to
make them comparable.
• Japan: We don’t need to be overly ambitious. Simple and easy to communicate indicators is
enough.
• Switzerland: Currently several indicators are suggested for each target. Given the challenges
described above, and in order to promote a realistic, high quality and consistent global
approach, Switzerland suggests a division of the set of indicators into two parts, i.e. core
indicators that are used by all states to report progress at the global level, and a set of other
indicators that are used according to national realities. For each target of the SFDRR, only
one core indicator is chosen. The collection of data for this core indicator has high priority in
each member state. For each indicator, an exhaustive and clear method is developed to
assure high quality and consistency of data across member states. This indicator only
indicates progress regarding the target and must be understood as a proxy for its success.
The seven resulting datasets represent the backbone of global progress report in 2030.The
18
core indicators are selected from the existing list of indicators and adapted, if necessary. The
Swiss delegation recommends considering the following selection of core indicators:
Target A: Indicator A2: Number of deceased due to hazardous events
Target B: Indicator B6: Number of people who received or required temporal shelter,
food aid and medical aid
Target C: Indicator C1 adapted: Direct economic loss (agricultural loss + damaged
houses and facilities) due to hazardous events in relation to the global GDP
Target D: Indicator D5 adapted: Length of time basic services of critical infrastructures
(medical service, energy supply, transportation, education, security services )were
disrupted due to hazardous events
Target E: E1 adapted: The country has adopted and implemented a national (and local)
DRR strategy in line with SFDRR (yes or no reporting)
Target F: to be defined/N.N.
Target G: Indicator G3: Number of people who are covered by multi-hazard EWS.
In order to ensure coherence and reduce the reporting burden with the 2030 agenda, the
core indicators for the SFDRR must be applicable for measuring the relevant SDG targets.
The above choice of indicators is a suggestion and a basis for further discussions. All other
indicators can be adopted and implemented in national databases and can be used for own
purposes such as national reporting or further analysis regarding DRR. An integration in the
global report 2030 is also possible but with focus on particular member states.
The focus on seven core indicators would allow:
to provide consistent, high-quality progress reporting at the global level. The seven
datasets have sufficient substance for clear and straightforward messages.
member states to acquire additional experience in the establishment of national
databases and different indicators. This is important because the task itself is a learning
process.
to avoid extensive data collection without knowing the power of conclusion that can be
derived from their analysis.
to concentrate on a few indicators for which clear and exhaustive collection methods
can be developed, thereby significantly improving overall data quality.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
• Indicator A1: Summation
• Indicator B1: to be developed
• Indicator C1: Appendix C of Technical Collection
• Indicator D1: to be developed
19
• Indicator G1: to be developed
4. Disaggregation (especially for Targets A and B)
Australia: Disaggregated data are “timely and reliable data, disaggregated by income,
gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location, type of disaster
and other characteristics relevant in national context” (adapted from the SDG targets 17/18
to serve as a draft definition in the Sendai context).
Philippines: It may be best to leave the level of disaggregation for the national level to
decide, because some countries may wish to make policy decisions relevant to their
particular circumstances that require data disaggregated in ways specific to their policy
needs.
El Salvador: There is no disaggregated data under Target (a) and (b): currently, there are too
few categories compared to indicators under other targets. For example, El Salvador would
be interested to disaggregate death by migratory status.
Inputs by countries:
• Italy: It is recommended to distinguish between resident and non-resident people. In any
case, this must be clarified in the metadata. To standardize every country, it should use the
same population.
• Mexico: The level of disaggregation of information should be considered at the sub-national
level, as there are not so many mechanisms to generate information at a very local level.
• Sri Lanka: These should be left for the individual countries to decide.
• Sweden: Sweden agrees that it is good to encourage countries to collect disaggregated data
at the national level.
• Thailand: Thailand welcomes the proposed indicators and related terminology and joins
many countries’ comments that the level of disaggregation should be dependent on national
decision.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
• Global Network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: We believe
disaggregation of data by age, sex, disability, income, type of hazard and location for all
indicators should be a priority in order to ensure policy responses can be more effective. We
support UNDESA’s passionate statement on the need to be ambitious in our data
disaggregation and also Australia and El Salvador’s intervention…
20
• UNECE: It is recommended to distinguish between resident and non-resident people and for
certain purposes it could also be relevant to distinguish between nationalities.
• UNMCGY: We welcomed the earlier proposal from the Expert Group Meeting outcome
(shared August 2015) which proposed additional language with disaggregation of age in
indicator A1, B1, B2 and B-7. This should be retained within the proposal. The most
appropriate would be five years interval up to 1 - 100 years of age, especially for younger
and older people due to them usually not being counted. Suggest adding the five years in
each of the targets column “Disaggregation”. Proposing disaggregation of age by 5 year
intervals from age 0-100, gender, social & income groups and any other status.
• Disability Caucus: It is essential that data is disaggregated by sex, age and disability, as
called for by Sendai Framework (Para 19 g) and the SDGs (Para 74 g). As policies and plans
should be built in an inclusive and person-centred way, it is crucial that public actors know
their population, especially those most at risk. This will not be possible without disability-
disaggregated data. Disability-disaggregation of data already exists at many levels, including
specific local and national registers, research/surveys, and individual experience, and can
therefore be built up and co-ordinated over time to ensure global consistency. The Outcome
Document adopted by the UN Summit on the Post-2015 Development Agenda recalls the
outcomes of all major UN conferences and summits which have laid a solid foundation for
sustainable development and have helped to shape the new Agenda, including the Sendai
Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction. Further, Goal 11.b explicitly states being ‘in line’ with
the Sendai Framework when developing and implementing holistic disaster risk
management at all levels. In short, if the data-gathering disaggregation is not maximised
from the beginning, neither the Sendai Framework of Action nor the Agenda 2030 will be
achieved, as happened with the MDGs.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
• It is recommended that indicators on mortality and affected people are disaggregated by age,
sex and disability at the national level in order to inform better policy and decision making.
However it is unlikely, that consistent global level, disaggregated disaster loss data will be
available in the short term to establish the baseline (2005-2015) necessary to monitor
targets (a) and (b).
• Please see Suggested Basic Set of requirements for recording and reporting disaster loss
(Appendix E of Technical Collection).
21
5. Normalization
Inputs by countries:
Ecuador: (Regarding A2), one of the proposed variable for calculating the indicator A1 is
indicator A2, number of deaths due to hazardous events. How to make the distinction
between small or large scale events when one can cause more deaths than the other? It
needs to be comparable through the years. For example, how to calculate the reduction in
mortality if we start from a baseline with events of small magnitude and suddenly the
following year another large scale event causes more deaths? Perhaps this will mean a
failure to meet the target?
Sweden: When deciding on how to normalize the data, make sure that the process, the
methods and the results are easy to understand for all countries.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
ENHANCE: It was suggested to apply statistical normalization technique to minimize the
distorting effect of ‘outlier’ disasters. This would imply that the frequency (probability) of
the natural phenomena are known or can be determined, which is practical for some
hazards but generally requires observational records of sufficient length. As similar records
are not available for all countries, the normalization may distort the analysis and conclusions
based on it.
ENHANCE: The vulnerability and susceptibility to harm are changing as our societies
transform in demography, wealth, cohesion and use of technology. All this makes outcome-
oriented measurement of DRR progress a daunting task. A decade-long baseline is unable to
capture the changes in risk, let alone attribute these changes to a better disaster risk
management prompted by the SFDRR. The suggestion to filter out ‘outlier disasters’ when
rating the progress is not helpful. The indicators of progress should not provide false
assurance that a full, comprehensive and probabilistic risk assessment is not needed; it is.
The enactment of the SFDRR should encourage countries and regions to better understand
the multiple risks to which they are subjected. This will require risk modelling and simulation.
An accounting system of registered damage and losses alone will meet the requisites of
forward-looking disaster risk reduction.
Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: In a particular year,
when a disaster does not happen, there is reduction of losses. But this is not necessarily
because of improved resilience during that year.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
• Normalization guideline needs to be developed.
22
6. Terminology and indicators
Inputs by countries:
• EC: Importance of consistency between terminology and indicators. Also important to keep a
consistent terminology: changes to one term may affect other terms.
• EC: Sometimes the operational definition may be different from a conceptual definition, e.g.
‘directly affected people’ includes within its comment the distinction ‘missing’ or ‘dead’, yet
we have two targets for this: Target (a) and Target (b). Sometimes we will need a different
operational definition for the indicators. The EU has been involved in going to the next level
and notes that it will be important to distinguish the operational from the conceptual.
Consider e.g. a person who may be double counted as injured, evacuated and homeless, but
if you mathematically add them up, you get three times that affected person. Operationally,
it may be a practical, pragmatic solution we want to move on with.
• Philippines: there should be consistency in the use of terminology and indicators (e.g. the
use of ‘killed’ yet at the same time the use of ‘dead’ or ‘deaths’ or ‘missing’; also ‘evacuated’
vs. ‘relocated’; ‘illness’ and ‘disease’. How are they different?
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
• Terminology and definition used in indicators should be consistent but might be different.
The definition of indicators should be guided by considerations of measurability and
practicality.
7. SDG
India: Indicators related or overlapping with SDG proposals should be retained, as making the link.
Inputs by countries:
Kenya: I welcome the recommendation in the background paper on the need for coherence
with the indicators proposed for the SDGs. This will ensure consistent implementation by
governments.
United States of America: Overall, we support streamlined, specific and quantifiable
indicators for the Sendai Framework. To ensure coherency and consistency the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), the indicators for the Sendai Framework should only be finalized
after there is agreement on the global SDG indicators. We recommend that the only linkages
with SDG targets should be with the targets listed below, which most directly pertain to
DRR: Goal 1, Target 1.5; Goal 2, Target 2.4; Goal 11, Target 11.5 and 11.b; Goal 13, Target
13.1.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
23
UNDESA: Suggest placing some Sendai indicators under Tier 3 (standards have not been
completely agreed yet), so the OEIWG have more time next year to agree on specifics
having alignment with SDG.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
Sendai related indicators are categorized as “pending” indicators by the IAEG.
8. Others
Mexico: Framework of 15 years could be divided into 5 year pieces. That will make it
possible to see if the indicators are functional and we have all the data needed.
Inputs by countries:
• Burundi: Problem of capacity building to manage data correctly.
• Canada: Clear assumption. All assumptions, criteria and methodology common to all targets
should be presented clearly at the outset. These might include stipulations about the use of
a tired approach (as above), the use of sampling/indicators as proxies for progress on
fulfilment of target, a phased approach to data collection pending capacity development,
and where possible, the prioritized use of existing systems and mechanisms.
• Colombia: There are many themes that we concentrate on through targets but not others,
such as financial protection (a priority for Colombia). Not to forget the priorities for action.
• Ecuador: As each country has a different reality by its degree of development, it is necessary
that this framework is flexible in its application, while insisting that the development of a
technical job in building methodology sheets to identify the scope and limitations of the
indicator. In order to know how a country is able to calculate an indicator, it is necessary to
do an exercise to build methodology sheets or metadata, in order to analyze the entire
Skelton of the indicator while identifying the scope, timing, availability of data, calculation
formula, definition of variables, and justification for its creation, techniques and syntax
limitations. This will also help to prevent subjectivity of the parameters and would set how
to measure the indicator.
• EC: EC recommends recording a quality estimate of indicator values (e.g. to distinguish exact
numbers from estimated numbers; calculated numbers from measured numbers etc.). Refer
to European guidance (Guidance for Recording and Sharing DIsatser Damage and Loss Data,
2015,
http://drr.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Portals/0/Loss/JRC_guidelines_loss_data_recording_v10.pdf)
• Italy: It is important to distinguish between direct and indirect impact: Directly affected
people, indirectly affected people, direct economic losses, indirect economic losses, etc.
24
• Italy: If people are concerned, then this should be written out: “directly affected people”,
“displaced people”, “indirectly affected people”, “injured and ill people”, “killed/diseased
people”.
• Japan: New initiative on Global Center of Disaster Statistics aims to support countries for
establishing national disaster loss databases.
• Kenya: I reiterate calls made by various delegations on the need to develop simple, accurate,
well-defined and concise terminology and indicators. It is important to bear in mind that
these terms and indicators will be used from the local level to the national, regional and
international levels. Their clarity cannot be overstated.
• Madagascar: Is the frequency about the regular reporting to UNISDR annual or biannual?
• Madagascar: We would like to mention the main roles of communities in this process.
• Morocco: What we need to focus on is building countries’ capacity to ensure that they are
able to gathear the information.
• Sweden: The first indicator for all the targets except for Targets E and F is an aggregated
indicator with the sum of other indicators. This is explained with the text “This indicator
should be computed based on indicators xx-xy”. The wording “computed based on” is a bit
confusing and can be interpreted in several ways. Sweden suggestion is to rewrite the
sentence as follows: “This indicator should be computed as the sum of the indicators xx-xy”.
• Sweden: Parallel work is ongoing to create indicators for UNISDR’s Making Cities Resilient 10
essentials for the local level. Essential 8 deals with resilient infrastructure. Since there will be
indicators for each of the 10 essentials, assure that the global indicators for critical
infrastructure and basic services and the indicators for Essential 8 are harmonized.
• Sweden: Sweden agrees that the global analysis of the data should be carried out by UNISDR
in accordance with paragraph 48(c) of the Sendai Framework and the results reviewed and
endorsed by an inter-governmental panel to be agreed by Member States.
• Thailand: It seemed that we were working only on the outcome indicators. It would be good
for the OEIWG to also see the whole monitoring system of the Sendai Framework, including
input and output indicators, which should be mapped out in an illustrative framework.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders
• Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: The indicators
suggested under the targets on early warning systems and national strategies only capture
part of resilience issues. Perhaps we need more strategic indicators.
• UNECE: If people are concerned, then this should be written out: "Directly affected PEOPLE",
"Displaced PEOPLE", "Indirectly affected PEOPLE", "Injured or ill PEOPLE", "Killed/deceased
PEOPLE"
25
• UNECE: Mutual exclusivity and change of status over time: A distinction needs to be made
between the recording in the field (during or immediately after a disaster) and providing
statistics and indicators after the disaster (characterization of the disaster event as whole
over a specific/defined period of time, e.g. for reports, analysis, national and international
comparisons etc.). There has been a long discussion in the group on which of the terms have
to be mutually exclusive. This is a very important aspect for recording of data and providing
statistics and indicators that characterize the event later on. This is a strong call and
recommendation that the final version of the terminology is clear whether terms and
classifications are mutually exclusive or not (this might be different for recording in the field,
basic statistics and indicators). Similarly, the hazard has certain phases. E.g. a cyclone may
start with strong winds, followed by a storm surge and heavy rains with develop into a flood
that then causes pollution and health impacts. So ideally it should be clear which hazard and
sub-hazard caused what kind of loss and damage, and where and when. (1) Recording in the
field: One individual can either be dead, injured (or ill), healthy or missing. Thus, these three
classes are mutually exclusive when registering people (i.e. counting bodies, registering
survivors and comparing with the actual population). However, the status can change: Some
injured people could die, missing people will appear and either be counted as dead, injured
or healthy or additional people will get injured or die because of later events which are
directly connected to the disaster (e.g. houses collapsing some days after the earthquake
and killing people). Again, the classes “dead people”, “injured or ill people” and “missing
people” will be mutually exclusive at the moment of recording. Another example is
evacuated and relocated people: At the moment of moving the people it might not be clear
whether the temporary evacuation will result in a permanent relocation. Evacuation and
relocation are mutually exclusive at the moment of recording in the field. However, the
status can change from evacuation to relocation as a function of time. (2) Statistics and
indicators characterizing the disaster (prepared after the disaster, based on records taken in
the field and other information): For these statistics it will be important to know how many
people died immediately and how the status changed over time. Thus, the three classes
dead, injured or ill and missing are not mutually exclusive anymore. The same person can
appear in more than one class. In the example of evacuation and relocation it can happen,
that evacuated people get the status relocated people when it becomes clear that the
movement has to be permanently. But for several purposes it might be important to also
count them as “evacuated” in the statistics that characterize the disaster. Thus, some people
are double-counted in both classes “evacuated” and “relocated”. This has to be considered
when calculating the number of “displaced people” (no double counting!).
26
• UNESCAP: Consider mechanisms to de-conflict disaster-related figures with that of other
sectors, which are related to economic, social, and environmental shocks.
• ENHANCE: International and multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) are pointed out
throughout the SFDRR as an important component of the transformative DRR. However,
neither the revised and extended terminology, nor the proposed indicators offer a view on
what the partnership are or should be, what principles they should be obliged to, and how
the performance of partnerships should be assessed and reported.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
• UNISDR needs to further develop Technical Collection to support countries.
27
Target A: Substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030,
aiming to lower average per 100,000 global mortality between 2020-
2030 compared to 2005-2015.
(Proposed revision)
Target (a): Substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030, aiming to lower average per 100,000 global mortality between 2020-2030 compared to 2005-2015
A1 - Number of [deaths / deceased – Cuba, Bangladesh] and [missing [persons – Bangladesh] / presumed dead – Bangladesh] due to hazardous events per 100,000
Inputs by countries A1 - Number of [deaths / deceased – Cuba, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka] and [missing [persons- Bangladesh, EC, Czech Republic]/ presumed dead –Bangladesh, Sri Lanka] due to hazardous events per 100,000 A1 - Number of [deaths /fatalities– Czech Republic] and missing due to hazardous events per 100,000
[A2 - Number of [deaths / deceased – Cuba, Bangladesh] due to hazardous events
Inputs by countries [A2 - Number of [deaths /fatalities– Czech Republic] due to hazardous events per 100,000]
A3 - Number of [missing [persons – Bangladesh] / presumed dead – Bangladesh] due to hazardous events- Ecuador – delete A2 and A3]
Inputs by countries [A3 - Number of [missing [persons- Bangladesh, EC, Czech Republic]/ presumed dead –Bangladesh, Sri Lanka] due to hazardous events per 100,000]
28
(Critical discussion points on Target (a))
1. Direct/indirect, temporal and spatial dimension
India: Landslides cause floods that kill people, which may also cause fatal waterborne
illnesses: to which event is the death attributed?
By type of hazard:
Bangladesh, Australia, and Paraguay: “Attributions” of death and missing is one
way to define the scope of this indicator. It is recommended to specify per type of
hazard to overcome the problem of attribution or “attributable to event x”.
By the time of death: It is recommended to specify a “temporal dimension”:
Greece: Whether the death occurs directly after a hazardous event or after a
hospitalization brought about by injuries due to a hazardous event. We would like to
propose that the phrase “directly after” should be replaced by the expression of a
time period which is going to be defined.
Switzerland: Falling trees in recovery from a hazardous event caused additional
deaths later.
Germany, Bangladesh, Lesotho: Secondary deaths of first responders during relief
and recovery period.
Switzerland and Germany: How to calculate the deaths due to slow on-set disasters,
such as heat wave?
By location of death: How do we measure impact on other nationals?
Germany: We collect data on affected citizens in other countries as well. Deaths
counted by countries that record the deaths of citizens abroad are at risk of being
double-counted.
UNISDR note: It is proposed the country where the event happened does report all
deaths
Liberia, Bhutan, Philippines: Need distinction between direct or indirect deaths. Data on
deaths should be mutually exclusive with data on injured. If people are injured by a disaster
and die shortly after, how should it be subjected to these categories? Will this risk double-
counting those injured/affected and those injured/affected and finally die?
Czech Republic: We would like to support a pragmatic solution in definitions of death due to
disaster events not to get lost in details. There will be some double counting and no
counting but unless it is significant percentage of the total number, we should not be scared
by this too much.
29
Inputs by countries:
Australia: Suggest specify by type of hazard to overcome the problem of attribution.
EC: Attribution to a hazardous event should be at discretion of State, in line with national
law and practices, or following global guidance (to be developed).
Philippines: Clarify if the disaster mortality covers both direct and indirect causes of disaster.
For example, occurrence of diseases at the evacuation centers.
Sri Lanka: These should be left for the individual countries to decide.
Thailand: It should be noted that in many cases, death due to hazardous events can be
complicated. Death during evacuation or drunk and drown in the flooded areas should be
literally considered “death due to hazardous events or not”.
United States of America: A year is a good time period for measuring the number of deaths
and missing due to hazardous events.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders
UNMCGY: Both direct and indirect causes of death should be included in the assessments, so
as to facilitate the implementation of relevant policy making that reflects the scope of the
Sendai Framework.
UNMCGY: Definition about “directly after” e.g. in target A: Needs to ensure the terminology
definition of “directly after”, proposed by ISDR expert group of indicators and use that as a
reference to definition scope of indicator A.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
Suggested to monitor direct death only due to measurability concern.
Time frame should be clarified in disaster loss database guideline (to be developed)
2. Death and missing (A1)
Inputs by countries:
• Ecuador: This indicator implies to use the A2 and A3 indicators for its construction. Then
why cannot we have a single indicator with variables with A2 and A3 for its calculation? The
fewer indicators, the more attractive to the user and this facilitates the analysis of
information for political decision makers.
• Italy: Italy is not in favor to have one indicator that it is the sum of indicators (A2 + A3) due
to a different level of accuracy. The sum, composed by indicators of different quality, could
produce misinformation.
30
• Sri Lanka: A1 is more appropriate. A1 meant to measure a positive change, thus even
though there can be technical difficulties in accounting “presumed dead/missing”, worth
including it in the indicator. Even though there is a possibility of double counting (of course
based on the technical capability of the country to handle an emergency), it will not have an
adverse effect on the expected results.
• Thailand: Clarification of “death” and “missing” due to hazardous events should be made by
taking legal aspect into consideration. For example, “death” is counted when physical
evidence is found or when no physical evidence for over 1 year.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
• Suggested to record A1, A2 and A3 due to the difference of data quality and significant
number of the missing for certain hazards.
3. Death(A2)
Cuba: “Deaths” should be replaced by “deceased”, in alignment with the discussion on
terminology regarding the word “killed.”
Inputs by countries:
• Czech Republic: “fatalities” is used more frequently and clearly corresponds to
accident/disaster, while “deceased” may be from any reason.
• Italy: The use of the term “death” people is in line and coherent with the SDG target
terminology.
• Sweden: Sweden supports the indicator and also the suggested definition on death on page
23 (The number of people who died during the disaster, or directly after, as a direct result of
hazardous events). This definition should replace the definition of the term “Killed” in the
terminology document. Sweden thinks the word death in the context of this indicator is clear
but a change of wording to fatalities or deceased might be considered.
4. Missing (A3)
Russian Federation: It should be clarified because people may be missing for reasons not
related to disaster.
Egypt: Including “missing” may introduce problems of accuracy. Countries with less
capability to track their citizens’ whereabouts are at a disadvantage.
Czech Republic: There will be some double counting and no counting but unless it is
significant percentage of the total number we should not be scared by this too much.
31
Inputs by countries:
• EC: EC supports “missing persons”. The term “missing persons” should be defined in the
terminology together with the timeframe.
• Mexico: A period of time has to be defined to know when we will be counting a person in
this category. Usually it is difficult to have an accurate account on immigration. In
consequence, during a disaster, it will be easy to think that immigrants without proper
registration are missing people. We consider important to review the data of missing
persons in order to try to classify them in these two categories: “deceased” or “alive”.
• Sweden: The term “missing” needs to be clarified and added as a definition in the
terminology document. Sweden supports the definition on page 25 (The number of people
whose whereabouts is unknown since the hazardous event. It includes people who are
presumed dead although there is no physical evidence. The data on number of deaths and
number of missing are mutually exclusive.), but would like to add a timescale. How long can
a person be missing before counted as deceased? Sweden suggests adding the word “people”
or “persons” before “missing”.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
• Time frame should be clarified in disaster loss database guideline (to be developed).
However, the definition of missing is usually different across countries and defined by their
laws or regulations. It might be better to leave the definition to national government.
5. 100,000
Greece: It should be clarified whether 100,000 is referred to the total population or the
exposed population. Also it should be taken into consideration that if 100,000 is referred to
the total population then the indicator A-1 might end up to misleading results under certain
conditions. Misleading results might appear especially in cases where the distribution of
population has been dramatically changed over the two periods of time compared, i.e. in
cases where the population has been reduced at local level for reasons different than risk
reduction policies.
Egypt: At national level, each country can measure the mortality as is relevant to its own size
of population.
Czech Republic: This is not issue of population of the nation but mathematics. The number
of deaths must be related to the whole population of the state, not to those exposed to a
particular type of the hazard. Otherwise, we will lose the motivation to decrease exposure as
one of the preventive measures.
32
Inputs by countries:
Australia: This indicator should be based on the total population, given difficulties that may
occur in measuring exposed populations.
Australia: The target may need to be modified to suit smaller populations (such as many
Pacific Island countries) that have populations less than 100,000. We understand that the
Pacific will suggest “per 1,000”.
Czech Republic: The number of deaths must be related to the whole population of the
State/Nation not to hose exposed to a particular type of hazards. Otherwise, we will
undermine the motivation to decrease exposure as one of the preventive measures.
Mexico: Mortality rate per 100,000 could be standardized on the exposed population.
United States of America: The use of 100,000 per population is standard for medical
conditions as well as for social and economic standards.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
UNMCGY: Support Greece’s comments.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
Suggested to be total population. Discussion in Informal Working Group on Targets and
Indicators assumed it to be the total population.
6. Other comments
Inputs by countries:
Mexico: There is no scientific evidence to prove a formal correlation between human
vulnerability and danger of the events. A phenomenon with a high destructive potential
could not cause great losses in human lives by reasons completely unrelated to prevention.
This requires understanding such indicators as contributors of information by “proximity”
and should be consistent about the measuring of dynamic effects that will not be presented
as a seasonal trend (in the course of a decade a pandemic could void the comparison
required by this indicator).
Mexico: It is proposed to measure the direct actions or effects of public policies to prevent
risks.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
UNMCGY: We support the proposed indicators and target.
33
Target B: Substantially reduce the number of affected people globally
by 2030, aiming to lower the average global figure per 100,000
between 2020-2030 compared to 2005-2015.
(Proposed revision)
Target (b): Substantially reduce the number of affected people globally by 2030, aiming to lower the average global figure per 100,000 between 2020-2030 compared to 2005-2015
B1 - Number of affected people [by hazardous event-Qatar] per 100,000.
Inputs by countries: B1 - Number of affected people [due to hazardous events- Sweden] per 100,000.
To harmonize with indicator A1.
B2 - Number of injured or ill people due to hazardous events. B3 - Number of people who left their [places of residence/home -Zimbabwe] [and places where they are-Lesotho] due to hazardous events. B3a - Number of evacuated people due to hazardous events.
Inputs by countries: B3a – [Number/percentage -EC] of evacuated people [from exposed people-EC] due to hazardous events.
B3b - Number of relocated people due to hazardous events.
Inputs by countries: B3b – [Number/percentage -EC] of relocated people [from exposed people-EC] due to hazardous events. [B3b - Number of relocated people due to hazardous events. Italy-delete]
[B3c – Number of people protected per 100,000 - Cuba]
Inputs by countries: B3c – [Number/percentage -EC] of people protected [from exposed people-EC] due to hazardous events.
[B4 - Number of people whose [houses / dwellings or homes – Australia, Zimbabwe] were damaged due to hazardous events. B5 - Number of people whose [houses / dwellings or homes – Australia, Zimbabwe] were destroyed due to hazardous events. Cuba -- merge B4 and B5]
Inputs by countries: EC prefers “dwellings”.
34
B6 - Number of people who [received / required – Zimbabwe] [food relief aid/aid including food and medical aid – Morocco, Zimbabwe] due to hazardous events.
Inputs by countries and stakeholders [B6 - Number of people who [received / required – Zimbabwe, EC, GNDR] [food relief aid/aid including food and medical aid – Morocco, Zimbabwe; EC-retain] due to hazardous events. Argentina-delete]
EC supports “required” “food aid” as it is more related to the needs, rather than to the response.
[Alt B6 - Number of people who received [food relief aid/aid including food, non-food, and medical aid –United States of America] due to hazardous events.] Food relief aid may not be applicable to many countries. [Alt B6 - Number of people who received [food relief aid/ medical treatment –Morocco] due to hazardous events. ]
Other indicators proposed in the 1st OEIWG [B7 – Number of people whose livelihoods were disrupted, destroyed or lost due to hazardous events – Zimbabwe]
Inputs by countries and non-state stakeholders: [B7 – Number of people whose livelihoods were disrupted, destroyed or lost due to hazardous events – Zimbabwe, GNDR; Cuba, Australia, Argentina-delete]
New indicators proposed by countries [B8: Number of people exposed to hazardous events- EC] [B9: Number of students affected due to disruption in classes arising from destroyed classrooms or classrooms used as evacuation centres – Philippines]
35
(Critical discussion points on Target (b))
1. Directly/indirectly Affected(B1)
Niger: Affected needs to be clarified. What would be the minimal level of affectation - i.e.
would you measure individuals affected by an event occurring at a distance but who are
indirectly affected because they need to use a road that leads to their workplace? Can we
consider that all those people are affected the same way as people who have completely
lost their house?
Netherlands: Include affected in globalized events, for example losing family members
involved in an event in a foreign country? Need boundary between directly and indirectly
affected.
Liberia: We had Ebola. We have many affected people and we do not know the impact
exactly. We assume affected people survived the disease, but it is not measured. We have
people where entire family died except for the only one survivor. Long term effect of this is
not clear. Counted as affected people?
Inputs by countries:
• Australia: It should be up to individual countries to identify those affected. UNISDR could
provide guidelines to make such decision.
• Ecuador: You must specify the term affected, since it is very wide and in the terminology,
there is no definition that limits the parameters of an affected. That is why in the name of
the target it should be indicated which type of affection is referred, if it is social or economic.
• EC: Attribution to a hazardous event should be at discretion of State, in line with national
law and practices, or following global guidance from UNISDR (to be developed).
• Italy: Italy supports to use indicators that would estimate directly affected people as a proxy
for the number of affected people.
• Mexico: Set whether this definition will consider the intangible impact of disasters, as might
be the social fabric. Regarding relocated in B3b, integrate the dynamic factor or time in
which a person is considered as relocated.
• Sweden: Sweden agrees with the suggestion that the scope of affected should be those
directly affected. It would be a greater challenge to determine the total number of the
people indirectly affected by a disaster. It is recommended that indicators should be chosen
to measure the number of people directly affected in disasters, rather than indirectly
affected. Looking at the definition of directly affected, the key words are injury, illness,
evacuated, displaced, relocated or direct damage to their livelihood, economic, physical,
36
social, cultural and environmental assets. The suggested indicators answer to all the
keywords but the direct damage to livelihood only measures damaged and destroyed houses
and people who received food aid. An indicator measuring damage to social, cultural and
environmental assets may need to be considered?
• Thailand: Clarification of “affected people” should be made.
• United States of America: There may be reporting challenges with the indicator B2, given
that some illness may be indirectly attributable to disasters.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders
• UNESCAP: “Indirectly affected”: In reference to SDG: of disasters or social, economic,
environmental shocks
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
• Suggested to monitor directly affected only due to measurability concern.
2. Indicator structure (Computation of B1)
EC: Are these one single composite indicator or a set of parallel indicators? If one indicator,
what are some alternative components for calculating B1? Need clarification on ideas on how
the indicators will be combined. Trying to count all affected people and count them only once is
a key issue. An injured person can also lose a house and would thus be double counted. How to
do with double-counting?
Czech Republic: To simplify this indicator, the indicators could be limited to those that are
easily collected at the global level while greater detail can be applied at the national level.
Italy: Target B includes different elements and quality standards. Without a standard for
statistical methods to synthesize the data on Target (b), it would be better to collect the
indicators separately.
Cuba: On B-2 and B-3, they should not be mutually exclusive.
Inputs by countries:
Australia: Agree with Czech position. Indicators should be limited to those that are easily
collected at the global level while greater detail can be applied at the national level.
Czech Republic: We support simplifying the indicator of target B to number of injured and
number of those whose houses were destroyed or damaged.
• Ecuador: As the text indicates that the B1 indicator is build based on B2 to B6, which means
five additional indicators that can be synthesized into one, presenting one single information
that contributes to its interpretation due to its synthesis.
37
• Ecuador: It should indicate whether it is possible to quantify the same person who has been
injured and has been evacuated or relocated or his/her home has been destroyed.
• Italy: The indicators of this target refer to several elements of different quality standards. It
is possible to have accuracy problems for the different indicators and also double counting.
Therefore, it is important to have a set of parallel indicators. In some cases, they cannot be
mutually exclusive, e.g. people can be injured and evacuated. It is important to take into
account all of them separately and to have separate clear indicators for this target. It is
possible to consider having a synthetic composite indicator. In this case, it is necessary to
make all the possible efforts to propose a standard and common statistical methodology to
create composite indicators in order to make them comparable.
• Mexico: Whereas the word “affected” is too broad, as it is stated by Bolivia, we support the
Italian proposal that considers that the collection of indicators data should be disaggregated.
We consider that countries generally do not collect the number of people affected without
disaggregation in the different types of suffered impacts. We support the inclusion of the
following sub-indicators: Number of injured and sick persons by natural disasters; number of
people relocated by natural disasters; number of people whose homes were damaged or
destroyed by natural disasters; number of people requiring food aid by natural disasters.
• Sri Lanka: B1 is more preferred; but this should be a composite indicator, which is a product
of a number of other indicators. For example: number of people displaced
(temporary/permanent); number of people injured/infected due to hazardous event;
number of people whose economic and social activities disturbed due to hazardous event.
Number of affected people is a controversial factor in disaster data, as there is no agreed
definition for the tem. It should be defined and agreed here. In Sri Lanka, it has been used
for various conditions in different contexts.
• Thailand: Double counting should be noted if B1 = B2 to B7. Evacuee and injured person
oftentimes can be the same person.
• United States of America: Double counting may occur, as some of these indicators are not
mutually exclusive (i.e. one person may be evacuated, receive aid and be injured).
Inputs by non-state stakeholders
• UNESCAP: Consider methods to mitigate multiple counting in the case of people have
multiple attributes, e.g. house destroyed, left their place, injured or ill, have their livelihood
disrupted, and receive relief assistance.
• UNMCGY: We support Italy's comment.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
38
• Suggested to record both core indicator and sub-element indicators due to the need for
summary indicator as well as sub-element indicators’ difference of data quality and potential
for policy implication.
3. Ill/Injured (B2)
Sweden: The terms injured or ill needs to be clarified. The current definition in the
terminology document is too broad and makes it impossible to measure. Sweden suggests
accepting the SDG proposed definition on page 28 (The number of people suffering from
physical injuries, trauma or cases of disease requiring immediate medical assistance as a
direct result of a hazardous event).
Inputs by countries:
• Australia: Agree, in principle.
• Thailand: Clarification of “injuries” and “illness” should take into account the code of
conduct from medical team so that the data collection can be integrated without confusion.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders
• Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: We support UAE’s
intervention regarding the need for a border look at health impacts and propose that B2
should instead focus on health not illness, and include long term health issues including
post-traumatic stress disorder.
• UNESCAP: This may need to be defined based on ‘functionality’ of a person: e.g. injured or ill
to the extent that it disrupt their socioeconomic functioning. The intangible effects of
hazardous events (e.g. psychological harm) are typically difficult to count.
4. Evacuated (B3a)
Period of evacuation post-event:
Japan: The evacuation can be precautionary measures. If the indicator is only
focused on the number of evacuated people, it could give the wrong message. The
evacuated depends on the accuracy of EWS. We should note that the evacuation
issue has sensitivity. We should focus on the period of evacuation post-disaster
event. It clearly shows affectation.
Residents and visitors:
Lesotho: Should not only be place of residence, or people residing there, but also
visitors who might be there for business or personal reasons. Disasters do not
39
distinguish residents and non-residents. Also include people engaged in relief and
rescue activities.
Temporal issue:
Argentina: Be clear about the difference between relocation and evacuation. The
temporal issue is not clear. Sometimes, temporal evacuation can begin to seem
more permanent. We need to help it be clearer for the various situations that may
arise, particularly in a people-cantered fashion.
Australia: Sometimes temporal evacuation can begin to seem more permanent.
India: Distance and timeframe are difficult issue and context specific but counting
this indicator is important because moving people affects people greatly.
Philippines: We should look at B-3 in relation to B-4 and B-5. If you look at B-4and B-5, there
is a distinction between damaged and destroyed.
Trinidad and Tobago: Estimates of evacuation and relocated persons is more important than
actually reported cases. Programs of resiliency where people can be relocated is also
something to look at.
Inputs by countries:
Cuba: In my countries’ experience the difference between evacuation and relocation need
to be made clearer when we propose indicators in connection with target b.
EC: Suggests “percentage of evacuated people from exposed people due to hazardous
events”. Evacuation is a positive protective measure and should be relative to the exposed
population. Need two data sources: evacuated people, and people exposed. The latter can
be derived from remote sensing and/or hazard models.
Iran: Some definitions (in terminology) are not clear, for example, for the terms displaced,
evacuated and relocated, these terms refer to “for different reasons and circumstances”,
which is redundant. No doubt, these actions are taken due to risk or disaster.
Netherlands: Several members want further clarification on the difference between
relocated, displaced (to be skipped..?) and evacuated.
Philippines: It might be useful to disaggregate “evacuated people” into those who voluntary
evacuated and those who were forced to evacuate.
Russia: In Russia we use many terms from the glossary, we have ‘relocated’ ‘displaced’ and
‘evacuated’, but think that ‘evacuated’ is the same as ‘displaced’.
South Sudan: ‘Evacuation’ and ‘relocation’ could mean the same, but ‘evacuation’ has a
notion of urgency.
40
Sweden: Sweden prefers the SDG proposal on definition of the term evacuated on page 28
(The number of people who temporarily moved from where they were (including their
places of residence, work places, schools, and hospitals) to safer locations in order to ensure
their safety.). However, it is very broad and might be difficult to measure. It may also lead to
double counting. Can people be counted as both evacuated from their places of residence
and work places, schools and hospitals?
Sweden: Temporarily vs permanently. The term “permanently” is clear but is it necessary to
include a time limit for “temporarily”? If evacuated for example 6 month, 1 year or 5 years
but there is a plan to move back, are you still calculated as temporarily evacuated?
Tanzania: ’Evacuation’ misses situations in which people are required to stay in hazardous
areas, this needs to be clarified
Thailand: In some culture related to risk perception, evacuation in some types of hazardous
events (inundation, drought) is not always regarded as risk. Some local people have
developed adaptive capacity to safely live with the event and often times can provide
assistance to more vulnerable ones. Therefore, evacuation in this sense might not fit in this
Target. If evacuation should be placed in this Target, it should be counted against the total
population in risk prone areas.
United States of America: Rather than focusing on the number of people evacuated, we
should focus on the period of evacuation of a post-disaster event, as it better demonstrates
the effect of a disaster.
United States of America: We should prefer that the categories B-3a and B-3b are not
merged, since they refer to two different types of displacement of affected populations. If
they are merged, it is important to disaggregate evacuated and relocated people. (Note: We
have evacuations in the United States almost every day due to hazardous events, whereas
relocation is a measure of the long-term impact of a hazardous event.)
Inputs by non-state stakeholders
UNECE: From the definitions it is not clear what the difference between evacuated,
displaced and relocated people exactly is. This needs to be better explained in the
definitions. It is understood that:
a) People evacuated are temporarily displaced in direct relation to a hazardous event
(because of immediate risk, during or immediately after). Thus, it is understood that
people evacuated are considered as directly affected.
b) People relocated are moved permanently to safer areas due to risk or a disaster.
They are also considered as directly affected.
41
c) People displaced are the sum of people evacuated and people relocated.
UNESCAP: Consider: a) left voluntarily when people seek safer places; b) being ‘evacuated’
with degree of compulsion usually during the height of the hazardous event; and c) being
relocated on rather permanent basis. There is value to determine if the move is voluntary or
compulsory.
UNESCAP: B3 needs to add people who move voluntarily. Arguably this should also include
those who have the knowledge of the event and then move before it happens.
UNMCGY: We support comments by Lesotho on residents and visitors. Clear definitions are
needed for both evacuated and relocated people. Evacuation is likely to be short-term and
directed by relevant authorities to remove populations from threat of hazard.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
Difference between displaced, evacuated and relocated should be clarified in disaster loss
database guideline (to be developed).
Time frame should be addressed in disaster loss database guideline (to be developed)
Suggested to record only post-event evacuation and relocation because usually disaster loss
database counts number of the evacuated and relocated due to event.
5. Relocated (B3b)
Short distance relocation:
Ethiopia: Some people lost everything and are displaced in their vicinity (e.g. within
1 km). We call them “specially displaced people”. Ethiopia recognizes movement of
small distances as “relocations.” Would this be considered within the definition of
this term, as relates to indicator B3b?
“Positive, life-saving measures” v. “Negative, disrupting measures”:
India: Negative measures include things like the disruption to livelihood, access to
education of children/drop-out rates.
Colombia: We are obliged to relocate people after a disaster, but also voluntarily
relocate people to protect them in danger of a disaster. Positive measures include
“voluntary” relocation to mitigate risk, which is different from forced relocation.
El Salvador: The relocated depends on the time frame involved and risk they face. If there is
no risk, they could be re-localized. But place could be destroyed and no relocation possible.
Capacity to return matters.
Inputs by countries:
42
• Australia: Suggest indicator be broadened to “permanently” relocated to differentiate from
“evacuated”.
• Australia: Suggest that the definition of “relocated” be broad to account for number of
people unaccounted for, isolated, or in evacuation centers. If not, suggest it should be up to
individual countries to determine how they refine relocation.
• Czech Republic: Consider the note on differences between preventive relocation as a
prevention measure and relocation as a response to disaster occurrence.
• Italy: Italy proposes to delete this indicator.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
Difference between displaced, evacuated and relocated should be clarified in disaster loss
database guideline (to be developed).
Time frame should be addressed in disaster loss database guideline (to be developed)
Suggested to record only post-event evacuation and relocation because usually disaster loss
database counts number of the evacuated and relocated due to event.
6. Housing (B4 and B5)
• Australia: Rather than just house, could we add other kinds of dwellings?
• Cuba: People who lost houses entirely are similar to those whose houses are damaged. So
we suggest merging B-4 and B-5 and disaggregating the information in B4a and B4b.
Inputs by countries:
• Argentina: B5 is included in B3. We understand this level of disaggregation is not necessary
since the number of relocated responds to the number of people whose homes were
damaged or destroyed structurally.
• Australia: Suggest alternative focus could be on number of houses/dwellings damaged or
destroyed, rather than numbers of persons.
• Bhutan: If you look in the indicator of houses destroyed. Destroyed should be defined and
damaged should also be defined (in terminology).
• Philippines: What is the difference between damaged and destroyed houses?
• Sweden: The SDG definition of houses damaged on page 42 is broad and makes the
indicator difficult to measure (Houses (housing units) with minor damage, not structural or
architectural, which may continue to be habitable, although they may require some repair or
cleaning.). Sweden suggests deleting the last part of the definition “although…cleaning”.
That part makes the definition to light and minimizes the consequences needed for damages
to be accounted for. Some repair or cleaning can be interpreted as all it takes is a little bit of
43
dust. After adjustment, the definition of houses damaged should be added in the
terminology document.
• Sweden: To make the indicator measurable, it should be a requirement that the damages
should be reported to insurance companies. Then the damages can be measured via
insurance claims.
• Sweden: Sweden supports the SDG proposal on the definition of “houses destroyed” on
page 45 (Houses (housing units) levelled, buried, collapsed, washed away or damaged to the
extent that they are no longer habitable.). The definition is clear and should be added in the
terminology document.
• Thailand: B4 and B5 require clarification why they should be counted by number of people
instead of number of houses. It is understandable that number of people is used for
calculation purpose against the Target. But it might cause some deviation.
• United States of America: We can merge B-4 and B-5 as long as we disaggregate the number
of houses destroyed (cannot be repaired) and number of houses damaged (reparable).
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
• UNESCAP: Potentially problematic in the context of informal dwelling where dwelling units
and occupants may not be formally registered.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
• Many countries have disaggregated data by damaged/destroyed.
• The degree or definition of damage should be suggested in national disaster loss database
guidelines (to be developed). However, the definition is usually different across countries as
housing damages are often linked with compensation or recovery subsidy and defined by
their laws or regulations. It might be better to leave the definition to national government.
7. Food aid (B6)
Philippines: Why is it only restricted in the case of droughts? Food relief aid is given
following all types of hazard.
Morocco: What about receipt of health aid assistance, e.g. opening hospitals in higher
ground during a flood or in mountains?
Inputs by countries:
Australia: Suggest that the indicator focus on those who “required” aid.
Italy: Italy recognizes the value of this indicator, however it could not be applicable in Italy.
Morocco: We maintain the Moroccan proposition about additional indicators. Indicator B8:
Number of people who received medical aid.
44
Philippines: Suggest including non-food items such as mental health and psychological
services and other health services.
Sweden: The SDG proposal on the definition of the term “people who received food relief
aid” on page 48 (The number of persons who received food /nutrition, by government or as
humanitarian aid, during or in the aftermath of a hazardous event.) is clear and should be
added in the terminology document. The note below the indicator (in the list of page 9) is
confusing and needs clarification. Why is the indicator only restricted to droughts? What
does it mean that the indicator is not easily comparable inter-temporarily?
Thailand: B6 is limited to only drought. But there are different kinds of drought. Slow-onset
and short time drought is what Thailand is experiencing. This indicator is not applicable to
every country though.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: We feel B6 should not
measure the number of people who have received food aid but those in need of it, a
proposal also submitted by Zimbabwe.
UNESCAP: Humanitarian relief aids cover health, food, water and sanitation, shelter,
psychosocial, etc. Needs justification for singling out food.
UNMCGY: We support a broader scope than droughts, raise by Philippine. We support
inclusion of receiving aid in form of health services in addition to food aid, raised by
Morocco. We support the opinion of Morocco seconded by Zimbabwe on indicator B6.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
Suggested to retain “received” because it is technically difficult to measure “required”.
Suggested to be applied to all hazards.
8. 100,000
Greece: It should be clarified whether 100,000 is referred to the total population or the
exposed population. Also it should be taken into consideration that if 100,000 is referred to
the total population then the indicator B-1 might end up to misleading results under certain
conditions. Misleading results might appear especially in cases where the distribution of
population has been dramatically changed over the two periods of time compared, i.e. in
cases where the population has been reduced at local level for reasons different than risk
reduction policies.
Inputs by countries:
45
Australia: Number should refer to the total population, considering that these seven targets
are measuring against the global population, not the portion of the global population who
has been affected by a natural hazard.
Australia: The indicator also needs to allow for countries with smaller populations. We
understand that the Pacific are advocating for “per 1,000”.
Czech Republic: We strongly oppose the idea to measure against exposed people, targets
are global and thus have to reflect the change in exposure as well.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
Suggested to be total population. Discussion in Informal Working Group on Targets and
Indicators assumed it to be the total population.
9. People whose livelihood is affected
India: Should this indicator capture the livelihood disruption? Access to education for
children/dropout rates etc?
Zimbabwe: On livelihoods, it is important to be clear about partially damaged and disruption
of livelihoods.
United Arab Emirates: We have not referred to the social and health impacts.
Input by non-state stakeholders
World Animal Protection: The definition of directly affected includes those who have
“suffered direct damage to their livelihoods, economic, physical, social, cultural and
environmental assets.” (UNISDR ‘Proposed Updated terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction:
A Technical Review’). We are concerned that the currently proposed indicators: damage or
destruction of houses (B-4 and B-5); and receipt of food aid (B-6), are insufficient in
assessing direct damage to livelihoods or assets. Houses are just one type of asset and as
such measuring the loss or destruction of houses alone is insufficient to act as an indicator of
loss. We would urge the OEIWG to go further and include a wider variety of assets, in
particular those productive assets that are essential to people’s livelihoods.
DRMC-Lebanon: Livelihood indicators can be added under each of the sectors under
consideration. While there may be different ways to measure livelihoods, two possible ways
include number of jobs lost per sector, and % loss of average income per sector.
Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: We feel it is important
to include an indicator measuring income lost due to disruption, damage or loss of stock
within small SMEs and informal services.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
Linkage with Target D indicators should be more elaborated.
46
10. Other indicators proposed in the 1st OEIWG
Inputs by countries:
Argentina: If it is decided to maintain B3c, “people protected” should be included in the
glossary (terminology).
Cuba: We are only talking about evacuated and relocated – we must also talk about
protection, to ensure activities/proposals are included in the indicators. (B3c)
EC: Either B3c or B3a but not both. The term “protected” should be defined in the
terminology.
Australia: Australia does not support this proposal. This would be difficult to measure. Focus
should be able to agree on fewer indicators that are easy to measure both nationally and
globally.
Cuba: We consider that proposed indicators B7, C10, D6, D7, D8, D9, E9 and G10 are not
necessary due to several causes. Some of them would reiterate information already given by
other indicators included in the text, which are more accurate; the nature of others does not
comply with the scope of the targets under which they are presented; and a few of them
pretend to gather information that is not necessarily relevant to DRR or that is not available
to developing countries.
EC: Regarding B7, it requires definition in the terminology. As such, this indicator could be
used instead of B1. If the “livelihood” is replaced by “access to basic service is
reduced/disrupted”, it can support the D5 indicator as well as provide additional data on
relief activity. The Basic service considered would be, for example, food supply, water supply,
energy supply, electronic communications, financial services, access to health and education
facilities.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: We support India and
Zimbabwe’s proposal for the inclusion of an indicator (B7) under Target B on the number of
people whose livelihoods have been disrupted (including those livelihoods relying on
productive assets). Livelihood disruption should be measured in a gender sensitive manner
and be disaggregated by group.
UNMCGY: We support the proposed indicators and target, including the inclusion of B7.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
“Protected” in B3c needs to be clarified and defined.
47
11. New indicators proposed
Inputs by countries:
EC: Number of people exposed to hazardous events. This indicator allows calculating ratios
of affected versus exposed, demonstrating the effectiveness of DRR measures. It is also a
critical indicator to develop better risk models, which are key to understand risk better
(Priority1).
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
Concern on technical difficulties to monitor B8 and B9
48
Target C: Reduce direct disaster economic loss in relation to global
gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030.
(Proposed revision)
Target (c): Reduce direct disaster economic loss in relation to global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030
C1 –Direct Economic loss due to hazardous events in relation to global gross domestic product C2 – Direct agricultural loss due to hazardous events C3 - Direct economic loss due to industrial facilities damaged or destroyed by hazardous events C4 - Direct economic loss due to commercial facilities damaged or destroyed by hazardous events [C5 - Direct economic loss due to houses damaged by hazardous events C6 - Direct economic loss due to houses destroyed by hazardous events – Switzerland - merge C5 and C6; Cuba- delete C5 and C6; Japan - retain C5 and C6]
Inputs by countries [C5 - Direct economic loss due to houses damaged by hazardous events C6 - Direct economic loss due to houses destroyed by hazardous events – Switzerland, Argentina- merge C5 and C6; Cuba- delete C5 and C6; Japan - retain C5 and C6]
C7 - Direct economic loss due to damage to [critical infrastructure/public infrastructure- Bhutan, Kenya] caused by hazardous events
Inputs by countries C7 - Direct economic loss due to damage to critical infrastructure caused by hazardous events (Argentina-retain original) Inputs by non-state stkaeholders C7 - Direct economic loss due to damage to critical infrastructure [and social services-UNMCGY]caused by hazardous events
Other indicators proposed in the 1st OEIWG [C8 –Direct economic loss due to cultural heritage damaged or destroyed by hazardous events -Bhutan]
Inputs by countries [C8 –Direct economic loss due to cultural heritage damaged or destroyed by hazardous events –Bhutan; Argentina, Australia-Delete]
49
[C9 – Direct economic loss due to environment degraded by hazardous events –Morocco, Ecuador]
Inputs by countries and non-state stakeholders [C9 – Direct economic loss due to environment degraded by hazardous events –Morocco, Ecuador, GNDR; Argentina, Australia-Delete]
[C10-Financial transfer and access to insurance-Colombia]
Inputs by countries and non-state stakeholders [C10-Financial transfer and access to insurance-Colombia, GNDR; Cuba, EC, Italy-Delete]
New indicator proposed by countries
[C11 Value of production insured against disasters- Mexico] [C12 Direct economic losses due to work/employment stoppage due to psychological perturbations after disasters- Morocco]
50
(Critical discussion points on Target (c))
1. Exhaustive or not, direct/indirect economic loss (C1)
• Tanzania: Economic loss must be broader. Economic issues cover lots of sectors.
• Czech Republic: Advocates for one simple aggregated indicator on a global scale and use
other more detailed indicators for decision and monitoring on a national level. Not too many
indicators are needed.
• India, Switzerland: Suggests not add more indicators, but put a robust methodology behind
C1.
• Kenya: Economic loss depends on the economy of a particular country, so it is difficult to be
exhaustive and meet the needs of all countries.
• Argentina: Suggest an “others” category for elements that is important to some countries
but perhaps not others.
• Ecuador: Economic loss could also be related to environmental services, e.g. burning forests
and tourist areas. Prefers to have an indicator with a component that comprises all.
• Morocco: Direct loss linked to environmental degradation. Tsunami related event can
destroy ecosystems and could also affect oil platforms and thus cause economic loss.
Specific ecological zones can be affected. Include indicator on the environment.
• Bhutan: Need to measure cultural heritage.
• Colombia: How can we measure transfer of risk to third parties (e.g. insurance) under
Target C? The reduction of economic impact should include looking at how countries are
growing in these financial risk transfers and accessing insurance.
• Switzerland: Direct vs indirect. For example, critical infrastructure of a road going to a
tourist resort might be small with regard to direct economic loss, but it might have greater
impact in terms of loss related to disruption of tourism.
• Serbia: It is hard to monitor indirect losses but encourage more work on this. Floods
damaged coal production, which in turn compromised energy production, which was
eventually the cause of GDP contraction.
Inputs by countries:
Australia: Agree that these should be one simple aggregated indicator with a robust
methodology.
Czech Republic: Estimates need to be used in this category with a rule to keep methodology
consistent in time.
51
Ecuador: Economic losses can be given for damage to ecosystem services such as forest
burning, however, that is not being quantified, which is why we insist to consider building
an index which includes various dimensions and one of them is environmental.
Mexico: Consider losses (direct-indirect); In Mexico, we had established the concepts of
damage and loss. Consider damage or destruction of other infrastructure (not limiting).
Netherlands: A number of indicators are being mentioned for the Target C. And further
presented in the document. Here it is not clear to what extent the idea still holds that not
all countries may need the same indicators. Hence, the suit of indicators presented provides
options for countries to choose from, not all of the m are obligatory for all. Is this correct?
Sri Lanka: Direct economic loss due to damages to assets (private and public), infrastructure
and disturbance to economic operations (i.e. losses due to service/business discontinuity).
Sri Lanka: There are challenges in terms of baseline information on agricultural, so better to
leave the freedom for countries to start with more simple indicators, where baseline data is
available.
Sweden: Sweden agrees and stresses the importance to agree on a definition of direct
economic loss. The indicators related to Target C need to clearly state which cost should be
calculated. It should not be mandatory to report indirect economic losses. It is too
complicated for countries to collect and report this data. The inconsistencies in the results
would be very high.
United States of America: We should advocate for one simple aggregated indicator (C-1) on
a global scale and use other more detailed indicators for monitoring on a national scale.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders
Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: We support India’s
suggestion to develop a more robust methodology under C1 which reflects the broader
economic impacts of disaster. It is essential that this has a focus on the informal sector.
Global Network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: In the definition of
direct economic losses, we feel we need to better capture the understanding of the
different ways that loss manifests itself for different groups and within those groups. We
think this speaks to Madagascar’s and Tanzania’s intervention bout the importance of
being clear on the differentiation of levels we are working at and the people we are
working with. As such, we propose this definition includes livelihoods and productive assets
(including natural capital and biodiversity).
Global Network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: The SFDRR’s goal is
described as reducing risk reduction, risk exacerbation and thus build resilience...We feel
that a shared complete index which measures the overall goal for resilience in the SFDRR
52
and supports the resilience focus of target 1.5 in the SDG framework would be a useful
linkage across these two frameworks. The incorporation of a resilience index within the
Sendai Framework need not impose an additional data collection burden on member states
as many potential indicators of resilience can simply be pulled from the SDGs, minimizing
additional data collection…We would therefore request that the indicators of resilience as
identified by the expert panel are reviewed during the next OEIWG meeting.
UNESCAP: Consider consistency of definitions for damage and losses in reference to those
contained in global guidelines on Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA). Regarding
disaggregation, if it is to be consistent with PDNA, consider adding by ‘development sector’
e.g. productive, social, infrastructure, etc.
UNMCGY: Support Serbia and Switzerland comment.
ENHANCE: The tabled proposal to measure only material damage of disasters as
representative of economic impacts is one-sided and inconsistent. Not only does it omit
sizeable economic and other effects of natural hazards that are endured in absence of any
material damage, it also fails to serve the goal for which the SFDRR has been adopted, that
is enhancing resilience of communities and societies. Albeit important, loss accounting
should not hold sway over a thorough understanding of risks including their ripple and spill-
over effects all over the increasingly interconnected economies
ENHANCE: Tying the damage and loss to physical ‘destruction’ may be too narrow in some
situations. For example, deteriorated water quality as a result of industrial accident would
not qualify as ‘destruction’ but rather a chemical alteration. The latter case may also lead
to higher water treatment costs and hence costs of water supply in general, which
according to the proposed terminology would need to be considered as indirect cost. We
believe the definition should try to speak out more in detail the type of disaster outcomes
that are to be considered damage. It may include alteration of (physical, biological and
chemical) properties, and inoperability or dysfunction of the damaged assets.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
Target C clearly addresses “direct “economic loss.
Suggested to record both core indicator and sub-element indicators due to the need for
summary indicator as well as sub-element indicators’ difference of data quality and
potential for policy implication.
2. Computation methodology
Colombia: How to identify a robust methodology which allows us to transfer quantitative
data into economic terms?
53
El Salvador: We thought it is not annual basis. If not, then put “annual” on paper because
this is the way it is tracked anyway.
Ecuador: Direct economic loss calculation must be defined. In the case of building, which
would be the criteria for estimating the damages caused? Market prices? Fixed asset prices?
Is depreciation going to be considered? Or replacement cost?
Cuba: C1 should not be a link to GDP at national level. What is essential is the global trend of
loss.
Netherlands: How to compute direct losses based on 7 sub-indicators?
Inputs by countries (including comments to Target C Computation methodology paper):
Australia: Australia assumes that losses referred to within all indicators of this target will be
converted to a $ value, e.g. USD value. It should be specified that these losses are based on
replacement costs where possible.
Ecuador: The calculation of the direct economic loss of each of the proposed indicators
should be defined. In the case of properties which would be the criteria of economic
valuation of damages? At market prices? Estimates of the cost of fixed assets? Is
depreciation considered? Or replacement costs?
EC: EC supports UNISDR methodology (direct economic loss indicator methodology).
Philippines: Should economic loss be measured based on gross value added?
Sweden: If standardized proxy values are used, they need to be adjusted to cost location in
different countries. Otherwise, Sweden considers this will not contribute as an indicator, as
it will give the same information as an indicator for quantifying destroyed assets.
Japan: It is quite important to institutionalize the measurement of economic loss in each
country, since the reduction of economic loss is an important factor of the Sendai
Framework. I appreciate the efforts made by ISDR to propose the methodology. The most
crucial part of the economic loss estimation is to collect of basic loss data such as numbers
of damaged houses and areas of damaged farmlands. It is thus important to foster each
country’s efforts to institutionalize the basic loss data collection.
Japan: It is recommendable to summarize not only the estimated economic loss but also the
total number of physical assets such as damaged houses and farmlands. It enables us to
clearly track the change of disaster damage in a quantitative manner, without any
uncertainties caused by monetization methods.
Japan: The proposed methodology should be a minimum standard to be applied only to
countries in which the measurement of economic loss has not yet been institutionalized. It
is meaningless and not realizable to apply simple but less accurate methods in countries
with existing better methods. The usage of more advanced methods should be prioritized
54
and to be continued in those countries. Since the primal purpose of the indicators are to
measure achievements of a country’s DRR efforts, or to measure them globally, the
differences of methods among countries wouldn’t be a problem. In addition, to encourage
efforts made by each country to improve accuracy, application of more advanced methods
should be promoted, given that the methodological relevance is verified.
Japan: I support the use of the Unit Cost. The usage of basic data such as the number of
damaged houses and areas of damaged farmlands can lead to promote the collection of
those basic data.
Netherlands: Assessment of direct economic damages based on value of buildings and
infrastructure is valid for houses, although direct costs for temporary shelter are not taken
into account in this assessment. In the Netherlands a valuation of this damage is made
explicit in the SSM2015 flood risk assessment methodology (de Bruijn et al., 2014).
Furthermore, as damages are based on reconstruction costs, differences will be mostly
guided by type and quality of the original construction (type of house) and not so much on
geographical location (urban, rural). The latter one can be measured by regional differences
in GDP (Messner et al., 2006).
Netherlands: To assess economic loss for industry only through assessment of damage or
destroyed facilities seems an underestimation, as the contribution to the economy is
predominantly on the basis of output (Hallegatte, 2008). Furthermore, the omission of the
service sector from the businesses/commercial sectors seems an underestimation of the
sector, as especially in high income countries the service sector can be important
(Hallegatte et al., 2010). This applies also to services by governmental institutions. For the
commercial and service sectors the damages to facilities would underestimate the
economic damage, as in general facilities are only a small part of the production factors
(Hallegatte et al., 2010). The same applies for transportation infrastructure, where damages
are not steered by the damage to the infrastructure, but to the disruption of transportation
possibilities (Bakker et al., 2006; Rolfe et al., 2011, in: de Bruijn, 2014). Past hazardous
events have shown that traffic interruption can have significant economic consequences,
particularly for highways and railways. Therefore, in the Dutch SSM2015 assessment
methodology the interruption of both is expressed as an average cost per meter flooded,
additionally to the direct economic damages due to the flooding of the transportation
network.
Philippines: While the use of direct damages is common in estimating impact of disasters,
the use of damage to physical assets and its link with gross value added/gross domestic
product is unclear. A physical asset does not contribute to GDP except during the year it
55
was constructed. Similarly, a destruction of the physical asset will not reduce total gross
value added until the facility is reconstructed. In the case of the latter, reconstruction will
not result to economic losses but economic gain. As such, the practice of using direct
economic losses (i.e., direct damages in the language of DALA) may be revisited. It is more
straightforward to use indirect losses to estimate impact to GDP, rather than the
summation of direct damages and indirect losses.
Philippines: Apart from direct economic loss due to damaged facilities, direct economic loss
per UN-ECLAC methodology (DALA) also covers damages to inventories and stocks (e.g.,
losses in finished production), and to equipment, furnishings and furniture. Since the Sendai
Framework defines direct economic loss (p. 5) as the total monetary value of total or partial
destruction of physical assets existing in the affected area, physical assets may include
facilities, inventories and stocks, equipment, furnishings and furniture.
Philippines: On the issue on comparison over time, in Philippines, damages and losses are
converted to real values (using implicit price index) to be able to compare over time holding
inflation constant.
Philippines: The use of an overhead ratio of 25% on top of the direct economic loss may
need to be further justified. The rationale behind the use of a constant ratio of 0.25 as
direct loss per damage hectare (p. 13) and damage ratio of industrial facilities (p. 22) and of
health facilities (p. 35) identical to housing facilities may not be appropriate. Countries with
available information on profit margin (by type of crop, or as an average of all types of
crops), value of equipment and inventories, and damage level may make use of these data
to improve damage estimation. Otherwise, there may be a need for separate regression
models by type of infrastructure.
Ethiopia: Challenge x: Should price be the local, national, regional or global in calculating
C1…C7? It will be best to compare like with like. Challenge x: Should we not consider
opportunity cost?
Netherlands: Page 10 of Target C Computation paper. Support for option2.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
ENHANCE: The proposed definition of «direct economic loss» should limit the loss to value
necessary to enable the beneficiary to return to the situation prevailing before the disaster
occurred. It was suggested that for simplicity matter the replacement value of the
destroyed assets should be considered. The replacement value is higher than the to-be-
applied depreciated value or equivalents, and worse, its use may constitute unauthorized
state aid. When the replacement value is the only basis on which one can determine the
56
direct economic loss, the economic loss should not exceed the estimated cost of restoring
the assets status quo ante. This means that if the newly replaced asset is functionally better
than the impaired one (according to the principle Building back Better), only a part of the
replacement costs should be taken into account – one that is deemed equivalent to
restoring the damaged asset to its previous functionality. We suggest changing the
definition to ‘Economic value of the disaster damage. The direct economic loss should be
based on the repair or restoration costs, or the depreciated value of the affected assets’.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
Replacement cost method recommended. Please see the concept note on methodology to
estimate Target C indicators (Appendix A of Technical Collection)
3. Agricultural losses (C2)
• Slow-onset hazards:
El Salvador: Questions about agricultural losses due to drought, which is not a
discrete event because of its slow-onset nature. Can we track the loss over the years,
but not as one discrete event?
• Coverage:
Tanzania: Need to capture all aspects of agricultural losses including irrigation and
dams.
Netherlands: Need to include fisheries. Fisheries are very sensitive to man-made
hazards, especially in coastal waters. But it may be included in commercial activities.
Kenya: Considers including floriculture.
• Price fluctuations due to disasters:
Netherlands: Profit sometimes rises during disasters. Market thrives when
circumstances are not as good.
Inputs by countries:
• Australia: Suggest indicators are based on stock losses, agricultural land destroyed,
agricultural land damaged, agricultural production lost (%) OR all assets that sustain
agricultural production.
• Ecuador: C2 data is obtained from surveys or censuses of the countries. In the case of
Ecuador, the survey is conducted at the end of each year, so in this case we could not
provide timely or immediate information.
• Sweden: According to the suggestion, direct agriculture loss consists of crops and livestock
losses, where livestock is defined as the number of 4-legged domestic animals lost. Sweden
57
agrees with the proposal from the expert group on page 54, that the scope needs to be
broadened and include poultry, fishery and forestry.
• Thailand: C2 measures only crops and livestock which are too narrow. It should cover losses
in aquaculture, forestry and tools and equipment used in agricultural activities.
• Japan: Suggest to also adding the damage to the land by hazard event into C2. Volcanic ash
destroys the land and flood water may depreciate the land.
• Japan: Suggest adding loss for milk and chicken, the data of which are available in FAO. They
are fundamental for developing countries.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
• FAO: FAO is in the process of developing a secondary indicator to monitor indirect losses of
income derived from agriculture.
• Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: We agree that C2
needs to take into account fisheries (as suggested by Netherlands) and forestry.
• Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: It is essential to take
into accounts the impact of agricultural loss on people’s livelihoods. In this regard, we would
propose that C.2.1 agricultural land impacted is disaggregated by proportion of the land
which is under cultivation by small holder farmers.
• Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: A more accurate
estimate of livestock loss under this indicator would be to use average net present value of
the animals over the duration of ownership. By only looking at livestock lost, the
replacement cost method excludes the costs associated with animals that are injured in a
disaster. Furthermore, replacement costs fail to account for the variety of direct value that
livestock contributes to food, savings and income.
• UNESCAP: Some countries include crops, livestock, fishery and forestry.
• UNMCGY: Support Netherlands comment on price fluctuation.
• World Animal Protection: World Animal Protection welcomes the inclusion of proposed
indicator C2 and supports the recommendation for further disaggregation, measuring both
livestock and crop losses. We understand that, in the case of livestock, direct economic loss
is to be calculated using standardized proxy values for the replacement costs of livestock lost.
However, by only calculating the economic loss in relation to livestock lost, the replacement
cost method excludes the costs associated with animals that are injured in a disaster.
Furthermore, replacement costs fail to account for the variety of direct value that livestock
contributes to food, savings and income as the table demonstrates. By collecting
information on the number of affected animals in a disaster, Governments and relevant
authorities can better prepare to incorporate them within future DRR programmes thereby
58
reducing the effects of future disasters, protecting livelihoods and decreasing animal loss
and suffering.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
• Need to develop methodology for forestry and poultry if included.
• Fisheries might be national indicators due to technical difficulty and different importance in
each country.
4. Industrial loss (C3)
• Data collection challenges:
Colombia: We don’t have a baseline.
Switzerland: Private sector data is not always easy to get. Same can be said for
commercial loss.
• Czech Republic: Direct economic loss to industrial facilities may be understood differently. It needs more discussion.
Inputs by countries:
• Australia: Suggest measure by number of facilities destroyed, damaged or closed and
associated physical damage costs.
• Philippines: On C3 Direct economic loss due to industrial facilities damaged or destroyed by
hazardous events (p.20). Admittedly, direct economic loss due to industrial facilities
damaged is not collected in the Philippines. Availability of this information would depend on
the eagerness of private sector to report damages.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
• Suggested to use ISIC classification
Direct values of livestock that can be affected by disasters (Campbell & Knoweldge, ‘The economic impacts of losing livestock in a disaster’)
Livestock and food
Reduced quantity of food available due to livestock death and injuries during disasters.
Reduced quantity of food through reduced livestock productivity due to: Increased exposure to disease;
Reduced availability of feed.
Livestock and agriculture
Reduced availability of draft power.
Reduced availably of manure.
Reduced agricultural output.
Livestock, savings and income
Lost savings in form of livestock.
Lost income from: Reduced sales of ASFs
Reduced income from transport and draft power.
59
• Estimating associated physical damage costs would be national level indicators (difficult to
universalize the counting methodology).
5. Commercial facilities (C4)
• Czech: commercial facility might be understood differently in different countries and
therefore might be difficult to use on a global level.
Inputs by countries:
• Australia: Suggest measure by number of facilities destroyed, damaged or closed and
associated physical damage costs.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
• Suggested to use ISIC classification
• Estimating associated physical damage costs would be national level indicators (difficult to
universalize the counting methodology).
6. Housing loss (C5 and C6)
• Cuba: C-5 and C-6 are similar to B-4 and B-5. Not necessary here. We already see the “trend”
as expressed by people affected when they lost their homes.
• Cuba: It would be difficult to calculate the economic loss for many countries. This can only
be estimated based on the construction material costs at the time of reconstruction. It does
not mark a trend.
• Japan: Data on number of houses is easy to collect.
Inputs by countries:
• Argentina: We agree with the proposal to merge C5 and C6.
• Australia: Suggest these be based on physical damage costs.
• United States of America: We can merge C-5 and C-6 as long as we disaggregate the data for
both damaged and destroyed houses. It is important to capture the direct economic loss
both due to houses damaged by hazardous events and due to houses destroyed by
hazardous events.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
• It is suggested to retain indicators as they are, because the housing damage and destruction
are the most recorded data and also very important in terms of economic loss.
60
7. Critical infrastructure (C7)
• Coverage:
Czech Republic: Bridges and tunnels and water supply structures should be
mentioned.
Tanzania: Airports might be reflected.
Norway: Satellite services (ICT) should be included. They are crucial in the process of
disaster loss mapping but also risk assessment and disaster management. If satellite
services are thought to be included into the grouping of ICT, this should be done so
explicit.
• Czech Republic: Definition of damage is important in this case. If we use the analogy to
houses in C5, then any road that is usable but demands for minor repair or cleaning is
categorized as damaged and we have some reservation to such definition.
• Czech Republic: The length of interruption and number of people affected should be
considered.
Inputs by countries:
• Australia: Suggest that this be removed as critical infrastructure is covered under Target D.
If its removal is unpalatable, suggest this be based on physical damage costs.
• Nether lands: In the contents shortlisting, missing indicators for critical infrastructure are
those that refer to service networks (water, electricity, …) and their non-functioning after an
event, and an indicator that relates to infrastructure which protects against flooding , and
their destruction and/or non-functioning after an event.
• Sweden: In the terminology document, direct economic loss is defined as “the monetary
value of total or partial destruction of physical assets existing in the affected area”. A list of
examples exists in the comment below the definition. The suggested indicators measure
agricultural losses, losses due to industrial facilities damaged or destroyed, commercial
facilities damaged or destroyed, houses damaged, houses destroyed, and damage to critical
infrastructure. Sweden thinks it is important to define a standardized list of what kind of
critical infrastructure should be included. It is vital that all countries report data in relation to
the same source. Sweden would like the group to consider including an indicator reflecting
economic losses due to disruptions in basic services.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
• It is suggested to monitor economic loss of health, education and road infrastructures due to
data availability concern. Please see Appendix A and B of Technical Collection
61
8. Other indicators proposed in the 1st OEIWG
Inputs by countries:
• Argentina: Delete C8 and C9. We consider the indicator C10 is not directly related to this
target. It may be included in Target E.
• Australia: Suggest deleting C8 and C9. Focus should be on a select of few indicators that are
most common across nations. Suggest that countries can consider these two aspects under
C1 and keep indicators to a minimum.
• Netherlands: In respect to economic evaluation methodology for loss due to cultural
heritage and environmental degradation, research has shown that cultural losses due to
natural hazards are one of the least considered damage categories. However, cultural assets
are from highest importance for a regions and nations identity and, due to tourism, also a
significant source of income in both developed and developing countries. Dassanayake et al.
(2015) present a methodology for the assessment of cultural losses and the monetary
valuation of intangible losses. The significance of cultural losses can be further emphasized
by the fact, that these assets are not replaceable, while economic losses can be covered by
insurances and other financial instruments.
• Cuba: We consider that proposed indicators B7, C10, D6, D7, D8, D9, E9 and G10 are not
necessary due to several causes. Some of them would reiterate information already given by
other indicators included in the text, which are more accurate; the nature of others does not
comply with the scope of the targets under which they are presented; and a few of them
pretend to gather information that is not necessarily relevant to DRR or that is not available
to developing countries.
• EC: EC would not retain that indicator C10 as it is difficult to integrate with the other
indicators in a composite measure for C1. It is not relevant at global level. Good for national
targets.
• Italy: Italy proposes to delete the indicator C10.
• Thailand: Clarification of C8 is required. If cultural heritage is in natural setting, only
recovery cost may incur. But if it is also the tourism site and becomes the main source of
country’s revenue, how to define it in monetary term.
• United States of America: Regarding C-8, how will we measure direct economic loss due to
cultural heritage that has been damaged or destroyed? How will damages be
converted/reflected in monetary terms?
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
62
• Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: There is need to
recognize the value of biodiversity to our economic systems. Therefore, we support
Morocco in their suggestion for an indicator of environmental degradation.
• Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: In line with the
ongoing discussion for the need for more forward looking positive indicators, we would
endorse Colombia’s proposal to consider financial protection through insurance as an
indicator of mitigated economic impact. However, we feel that it is also important to
monitor access to financial protection to ensure it is accessible to the most vulnerable.
Equally financial protection should include pension access and income subsidies for the most
poor.
• UNMCGY: We support the proposed indicators and target, including C8 - C9.
• UNMCGY: We need clarification on C10 before we can suggest comments, namely what are
the proposed objectives and variables proposed to be measured.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
• Concern on technical difficulties to monitor C8 through C10
9. Other comments
• Czech Republic: More definitions are needed to ensure comparability of data.
Inputs by countries:
• Mexico: It is suggested that indicators should consider preventive measures promoted by
member states, such as effective mechanisms of emerging intervention and early
rehabilitation strategies, also including insurance coverage, protection of the population
without the capability to effectively transfer their risks, social habits to the avoidance of
catastrophic damage, among others. These measurements should articulate a system that
integrates the efforts of agencies that support fields, industry, services among others. It
should promote preventive actions such as the obligation to have insurance. Proposed
indicator is value of production insured against disasters.
• Mexico: It is suggested to add the term “per capita” because it is important to consider the
economic losses in terms of the country’s ability to recover.
• Netherlands: In addition, one might consider to not only measure progress in terms of
“reduction of economic losses and damages”, but also to measure progress in terms of
“informed investments” made, as to reduce the probability of certain disasters (e.g. flooding)
and associated impacts. In the Netherlands, e.g., the so-called Delta Programme is
illustrative for how decisions have been made based upon state-of-the-art knowledge
calculations and integrated advice, and on politically endorsed safety levels for flood risk.
63
The associated investments are around 0.4 % of the national GDP… Such a percentage, and
its’ supposed downward trend, may indicate positively towards an increased understanding
of the benefits of implementing risk-based preventive approaches.
• Netherlands: The OECD reports positively on such risk based informed governance
approaches (Water Governance in the Netherlands, Fit for the Future, 2014). And the
insurance sector may be instrumental in sharing guidance on how to calculate both hazard
as well as preventive measures with standardized procedures.
10. Inputs to Concept paper (Appendix A of the Technical Collection)
(1) C2
Inputs by countries:
• Ethiopia: C2-2, Challenge x: Option X: Optionally it is possible to convert all the livestock
type into one livestock unit using TLU (where one TLU is one cow weighing 250 kg in USA)
conversion method and then multiply by global average price.
• Japan: Suggest differentiating forests used for commercial activities such as logging from
more natural forests or reservation areas.
• Japan: Direct agricultural loss should consider counting for each crop type because the
vulnerability of crop is different for each type. This is the minimum requirement for the
disaggregation. Why we can’t collect the disaggregated data if we can get the Aoha with
counting the yield per hectare for each crop type.
• Japan: Complementary method for Option 1 and 2. Please show a concrete example of
methodology.
• Japan: Page 11-13, we cannot find any background information for the 25% mentioned here
in the GAR 2015. Could you please explain the technical background to apply 25% to obtain
the direct loss per damaged hectare? Page 14: Please explain which factors this 25% is based
on. If the ratio of 25% can be changed, will it be changed globally or on the basis of individual
countries?
• Netherlands: Page 14 and 17/18, suggest supporting option 1, including complementary
methods suggested in case of missing data. Agri-specialist view welcome though. Page 15
and 19, Option 1 prevails.
• Philippines: On C2-1 Direct agricultural loss due to crops affected (damaged or destroyed)
(p.11) .While the methodology suggest that a weighted average agricultural output per
hectare be used for all types of crops, in Philippines, agricultural output per hectare is
estimated by certain types of crops (e.g., rice, corn, high value commercial crops).
64
• Colombia: In indicator C.2 direct economic loss in agriculture, it is difficult to have a
database with the price per hectare for each crop type. It is equally difficult to have the cost
of crops in both variable and fixed prices. This represents high complexity, since not all the
farmers in the country are industrialized, which makes difficult to estimate labour costs,
operation costs of raw materials, productive soils, irrigation infrastructure, machinery,
equipment, and infrastructure storage. Actually, the Ministry of Agriculture doesn’t have the
capacity of having such a detailed inventory for each type of production and price per
hectare for each crop.
• Colombia: Moreover, it is equally complex to differentiate when "damage to crops is also
very dependent on the growth cycle of the crop", as in step 2. On the average yield per
hectare for estimating direct loss of crops, where yield per hectare for crop type i (expressed
in tonnes) and the producer price per tonne for the crop type, for its detail. According to the
methodology guide, "to determine the direct cost by type of crop per hectare is extremely
difficult due to the lack of information sources and the diversity of crops and agricultural
technologies, from workers to highly mechanized systems. Option 1 would be the most
feasible.
• Colombia: Regarding livestock, countries should measure the average weight, which is an
additional effort for the country through the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
which have information about the updated average weight of each year; for the country, it
would be inaccurate to use the average weight suggested by GAR, 75 kg per animal. The
indicator does not accurately reflect the economic loss, as in 2012 the average weight was
160 kg.
(2) C3
Inputs by countries:
• Japan: What is the technical motivation behind assuming industrial facilities are damaged to
the same extent (25%) as the housing sector? This assumes industrial facilities are e.g.
equally likely to get damaged and in similarly exposed zones as housing. Is there any
scientific confirmation of such assumptions or could we change the ratio of 25% to reflect
these differing circumstances? Same question for commercial facility (C4) and health and
education facilities (C7).
• Netherlands: Page 20, 21-23: Preference for option 4. Page 24, option 1 prevails.
• Colombia: The basic estimation takes into account the area affected, the construction cost
per square meter and the estimated value of the equipment and products (raw materials
65
and finished goods) stored at these locations. The country could estimate the square meter
depending on the type of industry with the support the Ministry of Industry and Trade,
however estimating the raw material and finished product, is highly complex, to "Apply the
replacement cost per unit to estimate economic value" which is proposed. Gathering this
information would be a difficult, making this indicator difficult to measure.
(3) C4
Inputs by countries:
• Netherlands: Page 25, Option 3, maybe here also an option 4 should be worded. Page 26-27,
Option 2, may be here also per size category, like option 4 for industry. Page 28, Option 1
prevails.
• Colombia: An overhead of 25% is proposed for commercial facilities, for additional losses,
this overhead is not exact, because it depends on the type of product.
• Colombia: The information from the private sector is not always easy to obtain, both for
industry and trade.
(4) C5 and C6
Inputs by countries:
• Japan: Why the disaggregation for income is recommended? It is difficult to count the
income distribution for damaged and destroyed house after disaster. For counting the
houses damage, disaggregation of structural type is practical.
• Japan: Regarding CIMNE “Social Interest Housing solution”, please provide us more
explanation or website for reference.
• Japan: As the damage ratio of 25% is important to calculating most factors, could we add the
technical background as to how this ratio is calculated? If most factors depend on it, it must
be clear to what extent the calculation method can be applied to other facilities.
• Netherlands: Page 29. Preference for Option 2. Page 30, there are not options to choose,
but logical steps in case of missing data. Option 1 is ok. Page 31, option 1 prevails.
• Philippines: Philippines uses data on average insurance received for partially and totally
damaged houses to estimate direct economic losses due to houses damaged by hazardous
events.
66
(5) C7
Inputs by countries:
• Japan: Suggest to include the same level of detail in differentiating small, medium and large
health facilities as done for industrial facilities on page 20 and educational facilities on page
38 (for example by the number of beds or number of doctors/patient).
• Japan: Bridges and tunnels could be added to the formula as increasing cost factor as
overhead that is used in other area, or we can estimate them separately by setting unit cost
(cost/length) from the data of total (yearly) construction cost of bridges / tunnels and their
length.
• Japan: P34, 39 and 40, could we add the technical background as to how this ratio of 25% is
calculated by CIMNE?
• Netherlands: Page 32/33: preference for option 4. Page 33/34: same as page 30. Option 1 is
ok, with logical next step in case of missing data. Page 34b/37a/42: 25% increase for
associated loss seems ok. Page 34/36 and 40/42: redundant in options, same as 32/33,
34/36 preference option 4. Page 37b: Option 1 prevails. Page 38: preference for option 4 (as
in 32/33 hospitals), page 39: same as page 33/34. Page 42/43: Option 1 prevails.
• Netherlands: Other critical infrastructure (electricity services, e.g. and infrastructure for
protection against flooding (barriers, levees, dikes) could be included here, or elaborated on
separately. Now these are missing.
• Netherlands: Page 44: Preference for option 2. Page 45: option 1 prevails.
• Philippines: When data on construction cost for housing and infrastructure is missing,
among the options is the use of the regression formula for housing. However, it should be
noted that construction cost of housing is different from critical infrastructure (such as roads,
bridges) and social infrastructure (health, education). As such, the regression models may be
customized for the two sectors.
67
Target D: Substantially reduce disaster damage to critical
infrastructure and disruption of basic services, among them health and
educational facilities, including through developing their resilience by
2030.
(Proposed revision)
Target (d): Substantially reduce disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services, among them health and educational facilities, including through developing their resilience by 2030
D1 – Damage to critical infrastructure due to hazardous events D2 – Number of health facilities destroyed or damaged by hazardous events D3 - Number of educational facilities destroyed or damaged by hazardous events D4 - Number of transportation infrastructures destroyed or damaged by hazardous events D5 – [Number / Length – Australia, Argentina, El Salvador] of time basic services have been disrupted due to hazardous events
Input by countries D5 – [Number / Length – Australia, Argentina, El Salvador, Thailand] of time basic services have been disrupted due to hazardous events D5 – Number of [time/days- United States of America] basic services have been disrupted due to hazardous events D5 – Number of [time/people that have not received -Italy ] basic services have been disrupted due to hazardous events D5 – Number of [time/person-days -EC ] basic services have been disrupted due to hazardous events Input by non-state stakeholders D5 – [Number of time basic services / percent of people (or households) who no longer have access to health services which- GNDR] have been [disrupted/interrupted-GNDR] [due to/by the impact of-GNDR] hazardous events D5 – [Number of time basic services / Number (or percent) of children and youth who no longer have access to education services which- GNDR] have been [disrupted/interrupted-GNDR] [due to/by the impact of-GNDR] hazardous events
Other indicators proposed in the 1st OEIWG [D6-Number of education or health facilities removed from risk areas- Brazil, Mexico, Czech Republic]
Input by countries and non-state stakeholders [D6-Number of education or health facilities removed from risk areas- Brazil, Mexico, Czech Republic, GNDR; Cuba, Italy, UNMCGY-Delete]
68
[D7-Number of security service structures destroyed or damaged by hazardous events-Qatar]
Input by countries [D7-Number of security service structures destroyed or damaged by hazardous events-Qatar; Cuba, Italy, Argentina, EC-Delete]
[D8-Number of tourist infrastructure facilities destroyed or damaged by hazardous events- Morocco]
Input by countries [D8-Number of tourist infrastructure [facilities- Morocco, delete] destroyed or damaged by hazardous events- Morocco; Cuba, Italy, Argentina, EC, UNMCGY -Delete]
[D9- Number of states with resilience programmes or strategies for health and education facilities- Czech Republic]
Input by countries [D9- Number of states with resilience programmes or strategies for health and education facilities- Czech Republic; Cuba, Italy, Argentina-Delete]
New indicator proposed by countries [D10 Number of water supply networks damaged or destroyed after an extreme event- Morocco] [D11 Number of electricity supply facilities, public or domestic, that have been damaged or destroyed after an extreme event- Morocco] [D12 Number of communication facilities that have been damaged or destroyed after an extreme event-Morocco]
69
(Critical discussion points on Target (d))
1. Exhaustive or not (D1)
El Salvador, Brazil, and Morocco: Supports the opinions to widen the scope of indicators,
especially from the consideration of measuring social impacts.
Philippines: Need coherence with the terminology concerning critical infrastructure and
widen the scope including energy and communications. It is impossible to deliver basic
services without these.
Czech Republic: Water supply structure should be mentioned.
Norway: Satellite services (ICT) should be included. They are crucial in the process of
disaster loss mapping but also risk assessment and disaster management. If satellite services
are thought to be included into the grouping of ICT, this should be done so explicit.
Germany: The indicators suggested cannot be fully encompassing the list of critical
infrastructure. There are different understandings of which sectors are to be included in
critical infrastructure. Worth looking at what we understand for measuring resilience in
terms of infrastructure.
Mexico: Support what was proposed by India on Target C (i.e. Suggests not add more
indicators, but put a robust methodology behind C1).
Brazil: Depending on social group, “critical” is defined differently, e.g. women, rural people.
etc.
Argentina: Suggest an “others” category for elements that is important to some countries
but perhaps not others.
Norway: It might be difficult in dividing critical infrastructure and basic services by sectors.
Norway added a new set of 4 societal values: national government sovereignty, the safety of
people, the welfare of people, culture and nature. This may be a way to summarize
indicators.
Czech Republic: We support the idea to research a possibility of use of categorization.
Inputs by countries:
Australia: Suggest that indicators should be kept to essential services for survival: food,
water, healthcare, energy, communications, transport and banking.
Czech Republic: Might be very fragmented, which is valuable on national level, but difficult
for global aggregation.
EC: It requires the definition of critical infrastructure (CI), which would help countries to
decide on their list of CI, as well as metric behind D1. Rather than providing a global list of CI,
70
EC suggests to leave it at discretion of member states to adapt to their local context, based
on a clear definition of CI.
Italy: In order to guarantee a correct and consistent evaluation of the indicators of Target D,
a common and agreed definition, among all the countries, of what have to be considered as
“critical infrastructures” is needed.
Sri Lanka: Water, electricity, defense, transport, health, telecommunication, sewage, and
waste management facilities should be included within the context of critical infrastructure.
D1 is more appropriate with a better explanation on the term “critical infrastructure”.
Sweden: Damages to critical infrastructures are measured with the indicators D2-D4. This
means only health facilities, educational facilities and transportation infrastructures are
measured. Sweden supports the idea of broadening the scope and would like the group to
define a standardized list of what kind of critical infrastructure should be included. It is very
important that we agree on which sectors to consider when identifying critical infrastructure.
When the list is ready, indicators can be developed to reflect the list. Make sure that the
global indicators for critical infrastructure are harmonized with the indicators for the
UNISDR’s Making Cities Resilient Essential 8 on infrastructure resilience.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
UNESCAP: For instance, Dept of Homeland Security of the US indicates 16 sectors under the
category of ‘’critical infrastructure’.
UNMCGY: Support development of a definition on “critical infrastructure”, that takes into
account social services and environmental infrastructure. The indicators need to enhance
the definition on “critical infrastructure”, to take into account social services and
environmental infrastructure (in the form of biodiversity and natural capital that provide
ecosystem services).
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
It is suggested to start monitoring health, education and road infrastructures at global level
due to concerns on data availability and the universal importance. Please see Appendix B of
Technical Collection.
2. Physical damage
Ethiopia: What about the size of facilities? Education could be elementary school or college.
Health facilities could be a clinic or a hospital.
Inputs by countries:
71
• Australia: To be practical, a benchmark for “damage” definition, say, “less than 75%
operational” could be developed. Damage to a facility could be temporary or minor. Suggest
working group explore the possibility of including a threshold for “damaged” to ensure only
significantly damaged infrastructure and facilities are recorded against these indicators.
• Australia: Suggest D2, D3 and D4 should be broken into two separate indicators for
“destroyed” and “damaged”.
• Czech Republic: The Definition of damage must be clarified. If we use the analogy to houses
in C5, then any road that is usable but demands for minor repair or cleaning is categorized as
damaged and we have some reservation to such definition.
• Ethiopia: In reference to D2 and D3, it is critical to know the type/size of the critical
infrastructure damaged. In the case of health facility, the damaged entity could be a clinic,
health post, hospital and referral hospital while the damaged educational facilities could be
elementary school, high school, college and university. This information has high relevance
on the severity of the damage and recovery and rehabilitation action.
Italy: Italy believes that with regard to the indicators of Target D, it could be useful a
separate counting between destroyed and damaged facilities by hazardous events.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
UNESCAP: Regarding health facilities, consider hospitals, clinics, outpatient care centers,
community-based or health outreach, and specialized care centers, such as birthing centers
and psychiatric care centers, medical nursing home, pharmacies and drug stores, medical
laboratory and research. Regarding educational facilities, consider the breadth of the term
“facilities” as the basis for determining the priority items, e.g.: buildings, fixtures, equipment,
classrooms, libraries, rooms and space for physical education, space for fine arts, restrooms,
specialized laboratories, cafeterias, media centers, building equipment, building fixtures,
furnishings, related exterior facilities, landscaping and paving, and similar items.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
The degree or definition of damage should be suggested in national disaster loss database
guidelines (to be developed). However, the definition is usually different across countries as
the damages are often linked with subsidy and defined by their laws or regulations. It might
be better to leave the definition to national government.
It is suggested to disaggregate as much as possible. Please see the description of indicator C7
in Appendix A of Technical Collection.
It is suggested to disaggregate as much as possible. Please see the description of indicator C7
in Appendix A of Technical Collection.
72
3. Physical damage and basic service disruption
El Salvador: Damage to critical infrastructure does not necessarily reflect basic service
disruption. For example, damaged education building took 2 years for reconstruction but
disruption of the education service was only 1 week.
Argentina: Consider infrastructures that are not damaged or destroyed but do have a
disruption of services.
Philippines: Economic loss of critical infrastructure does not necessarily reflect basic service
disruption. For example, in terms of medical services, services can continue in tents.
(Philippines)
Inputs by countries:
• Australia: There are separate indicators for damage and service disruption. The “number of
times services are disrupted” needs to factor in the length of time facilities are “out”.
Damage to a facility could be temporary or minor.
• Czech Republic: Two different things to measure: number of facilities and impact in service
interruption.
• Philippines: is the disruption of basic services such as health also considering the availability
of medical personnel to provide health and medical services? How these will be measured
along with infrastructures?
Philippines: Provide separate indicators for the disruption of basic services.
Sweden: It is important to have a clear distinction between the terms critical infrastructure
and basic services. Regarding D2, number of health facilities destroyed or damaged is not
necessarily that important. The period of time (hours, days, weeks, months, years) that
healthcare services are disrupted and how many people affected is more meaningful data
but can be difficult to measure. Regarding D3, same comment as D2. Number of people
affected by disruptions in the educational services is more meaningful than number of
facilities. Regarding D4, similarly, the lengths of roads or railways destroyed measured in
kilometers is not necessarily that important. The total time the services were disrupted and
people affected is more meaningful. For example, disruption in the electricity supply system
for 3 days affecting 150,000 people’s hours, 3 main hospitals etc.
Sweden: The relationship between basic services and critical infrastructure needs to be very
clear. Is it possible to define two standardized lists of what kind of basic services and critical
infrastructure should be included according to the Sendai framework? To have a fixed list
would help countries to report data and would help the global level to compare data from
73
the countries. Fixed lists would also help the countries to understand the relationship
between the terms. For example: Basic service electricity Critical infrastructure: Power grid
United States of America: what will be measure of disruption of basic services?
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
UNMCGY: We support the comments of El Salvador and Argentina.
4. Basic service disruption (D5)
• Colombia: Number of times public services are interrupted is not reported, as often
managed by the private sector.
Inputs by countries:
• Argentina: We consider more relevant and precise to talk about “accumulated total time
that the basic services have been disrupted due to hazardous events”, instead of the number
of times.
• Australia: Suggest indicator is based on the “number of significant disruptions to basic series”
(this can then include lengthy disruptions or a series of smaller disruptions that may have
had a major impact on the service).
• EC: Disruption of basic services is caused by the physical damage of the critical infrastructure
(CI). For example, electricity network is CI while electricity is the service. Therefore, it
requires different metrics. These are three options: (1) length of time basic services have
been disrupted (number of days); (2) number of persons affected; (3) a combination of both
(number of person day). EC suggests option 3.
• Italy: Italy suggests referring to the amount of people that have not received basic services
(ICT system, water, power and energy supply) rather than refer to the number/length of
time basic services have been disrupted due to hazardous events.
• Mexico: It is needed to integrate economic aspects such as banks, access to cash resources,
supermarkets, food and access to telecommunications.
• Sweden: Sweden understands that it is very difficult to define and record the duration of
service disruption and number of people affected but if possible that would be much more
interesting than the number of, or number of times services has been disrupted.
• Thailand: D5 should be collected in lengths rather than in time.
• Colombia: In indicator D.5, the methodology suggested "the sum of the data of national
databases of disaster loss”. However, it is proposed by the country, to take into
consideration the time of suspension of the service, which is more detailed information.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
74
• Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: We propose that
within indicator D5 on disruption of basic services, we include pension and social protection
mechanisms within basic services.
• Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: We also endorse
Brazil’s call for more people centered indicators under this target, expressing some of these
indicators of economic impact as impacts on people.
• UNMCGY: Such data reporting on the number of disruptions of public services should be a
requirement, including by the private sector.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
• Balance between additional data recording and potential for policy implication by detailed
data recording.
• Scope of basic services could be consistent with the scope of critical infrastructure. Please
see Appendix B of Technical Collection.
5. Transportation infrastructure (D4)
El Salvador: Asking for flexibility. It should concern public transport such as bus in El
Salvador context.
Czech Republic: Bridges and tunnels should be mentioned as critical points of traffic
infrastructure.
Inputs by countries:
Czech Republic: A method of computation of length of the destroyed and damaged traffic
infrastructure must be greed and we prefer to use the whole lengths of interrupted road
between the nodes of the network.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
It is suggested to start monitoring road infrastructures at global level due to concerns on
data availability and the universal importance. Please see Appendix B of Technical Collection.
6. Other indicators proposed in the 1st OEIWG
Inputs by countries:
Argentina (Comments for D6): We consider this indicator has more to do with Target E than
Target D.
Argentina (comments for D7, D8 and D9): Delete.
75
Australia (Comments for D6 to D9): These should be a limited amount of indicators. Focus
should be basic or essential services. Some of these proposed indicators could be considered
under Target C.
Czech Republic: Comment of Czech Republic for D6 was not about removal, but in more
general on building the resilience, e.g. number of states with resilience programmes or
strategies for health and education facilities.
Cuba: We consider that proposed indicators B7, C10, D6, D7, D8, D9, E9 and G10 are not
necessary due to several causes. Some of them would reiterate information already given by
other indicators included in the text, which are more accurate; the nature of others does not
comply with the scope of the targets under which they are presented; and a few of them
pretend to gather information that is not necessarily relevant to DRR or that is not available
to developing countries.
Italy: Italy suggests deleting D6, D7, D8 and D9.
EC: D7 and D8 are not relevant at global level. Good for national targets.
Czech Republic: D9 is an input indicator, but the target itself includes “trough developing
their resilience“. The increase in resilience is not covered by other indicators.
EC: D9 describes the DRR strategies, not their outcome. Therefore D9 is covered by Target E.
Thailand (Comment for D8): D8 has redundancy in “infrastructure facilities”. Or do you
mean tourist infrastructure and/or facilities? When defining D8 and C8, there is a need to
distinguish D8 and C8.
Morocco: D8, especially SIDS.
Inputs by non-sate stakeholders:
Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: We would echo
proposals by Brazil and Czech Republic for including an indicator for the resilience of
infrastructure and services. We echo the calls for measuring the continuity of services as a
positive indicator for resilience.
UNMCGY: We do not support the suggested indicators D6 and D8. D8 is addressed in target
C, and is not relevant to target D, infrastructure loss affecting tourism is to be recognized as
a financial loss but not a critical infrastructure which aim to maintain security and social
services.
UNMCGY: We support the proposed indicators and targets, including D7 and D9.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
D6 and D9 are input indicators. It could be difficult to globally define tourist infrastructures
and security service structures for D7 and D8.
76
7. Other comments
• Ecuador: Before measuring D2 and D3 indicators, before the disaster, there should be a
registry of health and educational facilities. This would allow us to have a good
understanding of the indicator when things happen.
Inputs by countries:
• Ecuador: To measure Target D indicator for substantially reduce disaster damage to critical
infrastructure and disruption of basic services, in indicators D2 and D3, it is proposed to
measure not only the number of health and education facilities that have been destroyed
or damaged due to hazardous events, but also if something is being done for reducing the
damage caused by the disaster.
• Ecuador: Additionally, it is suggested that before measuring the indicator and a disaster
occurs, you must have a record to see whether these health facilities and education are
built improperly, which allows us to know if they are built in areas not mitigating risk, to
avoid confusion when the final data is obtained.
• Czech Republic: Consistency in methodology in time is more important than very detail
methodology on evaluating the detail damage to particular type of infrastructure.
• Czech Republic: Basic question should be do we have a data for reference period If not it is
sill ok to monitor this for the next period but not countable for SFDRR monitoring.
• Mexico: It is suggested to analyze the feasibility of including indicators that directly
measure prevention mechanisms adopted to reduce disaster damage to critical
infrastructure and disruption of basic services. Mechanisms such as operations continuity
plans, internal civil protection programs, facilities that monitor threats, insurance and risk
transfer, value of the insured goods and services, amount and coverage of financial
instruments, post-emergency time of recovery, and vulnerability assessments of public
goods, among others.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders
• Disability Caucus: Recommended minimum indicators defined to make global comparison of
damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services possible must be fully
inclusive of all disproportionately affected people in society, and must account not only for
government services but also cover the private sector (including diverse educational settings,
private health settings, NGO-run services, etc.)
77
Target E: Substantially increase the number of countries with national
and local disaster risk reduction strategies by 2020.
(Proposed revision)
Target (e): Substantially increase the number of countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies by 2020
E1 - Number of countries that adopt and implement national DRR strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015- 2030 E2 – Percentage of local governments that adopt and implement local DRR strategies in line with the [Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 /national disaster risk reduction strategy – Nepal]
Input by countries E2 – Percentage of local governments that adopt and implement local DRR strategies in line with the [Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 /national disaster risk reduction strategy – Nepal, EU]
E3 – Number of countries that [integrate/integrated- Morocco] [climate and disaster risk/climate change-Morocco] into [development planning/development plan-Morocco]
Input by countries E3 – Number of countries that integrate climate and disaster risk into development planning (retain original-United States of America) Input by non-state stakeholders E3 – Number of countries that [integrate/integrated- Morocco, UNMCGY] [climate and disaster risk/an all hazard approach- UNMCGY] into development planning
The following language does not limit the scope of DRR to climate change adaptation.
[E4 – Number of countries that adopt and implement critical infrastructure protection plan – Czech Republic, India, Egypt-delete]
Input by countries [E4 – Number of countries that adopt and implement critical infrastructure protection plan – Czech Republic, India, Egypt, Mexico-delete]
Other indicators suggested by Expert Group [E5 Number of countries with cross-sectoral bodies/forums, with clear roles and responsibilities identified across state institutions, civil society, private sector and international actors, in the implementation and review of DRR measures- Cuba, Czech Republic-delete; Japan-retain]
Input by countries [E5 Number of countries with cross-sectoral bodies/forums, with clear roles and
78
responsibilities identified across state institutions, civil society, private sector and international actors, in the implementation and review of DRR measures- Cuba, Czech Republic, Argentina-delete; Japan-retain]
[E-6 Number of countries accounting for future risk in public and private balance sheets,
setting financial targets to inform investment strategies for reducing risk and enhancing future prosperity- Cuba, Czech Republic-delete]
Input by countries [E-6 Number of countries accounting for future risk in public and private balance sheets, setting financial targets to inform investment strategies for reducing risk and enhancing future prosperity- Cuba, Czech Republic, Argentina-delete]
[E-7 Number of countries and local governments conducting (independent) periodic outcome reviews of the implementation of national and local DRR strategies - Cuba, Czech Republic-delete]
Other indicators proposed in the 1st OEIWG [E8 Number of countries that adopt and implement sector specific DRR strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction – Tanzania]
Input by countries [E8 Number of countries that adopt and implement sector specific DRR strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction – Tanzania, Sweden]
[E9 – Number of countries that have national financing mechanisms for DRR –Madagascar, India]
Input by countries [E9 – Number of countries that have national financing mechanisms for DRR –Madagascar, India; Argentina, Cuba-Delete]
[E10 – Number of countries that have spatial and land use planning mechanisms for DRR –Madagascar] New indicators proposed by countries
[E11: Percentage/number of local governments that have adopted or committed with the
new 10 essentials defined in the UNISDR Global Campaign “Developing Resilient Cities”-
Argentina]
[E12: Number of countries that adopt and implement regional DRR strategies in line with the
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015- 2030-Sweden].
[E13: Percentage of fund allocation from the national budget for the implementation of the national DRR strategies- Sri Lanka] [E14: Percentage of fund allocated in the local authorities to implement the local DRR strategies- Sri Lanka]
79
[E15: Number of countries that have elaborated and implemented action plans for reducing climate change impacts-Morocco] [E16: Number of countries that have adopted and implemented plans for strengthening capacities for improving risk knowledge and risk culture within the population-Morocco]
80
(Critical discussion points on Target (e))
1. Computing methodology (E1)
European Commission: Rather than only yes/no, would it be possible to have quantitative
indicators to measure levels of progress?
Netherlands: A compact matrix which allows measuring progress in time on the essential
issues in the Sendai Framework should be included. Essential issues include priorities of
actions, people in vulnerable conditions, resilience of health and educational services as well
as critical infrastructure and basic services, integration of climate change and early warning
systems and risk information.
Inputs by countries:
Australia: Supportive of an indicator that measures how many countries have a DRR strategy,
followed by qualitative data to measure the level of integration of DRR strategies.
Sri Lanka: Need to have a computation methodology to quantify the level of implementation
and progress of the national and local DRR strategies. Allocation of funds is proxy to
measure the level of implementation or % spent from allocated budget. Anyway, we need an
indicator for fund allocation: % of fund allocation from the national budget for the
implementation of the national strategies; % of fund allocated in the local authorities to
implement the local strategies.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
DRMC-Lebanon: It was clear from the HFA that some of the challenges in its implementation
are that it offered one indicator set for countries irrespective of their Grade (i.e. those in
Grade 1 as well as those in Grade 4 or 5). While this is understandable in order to have a
unified framework, what is missing now in Sendai is guidelines and recommendations for
progress that are sensitive to the existing level / grade in the country under consideration. In
other words, it should be recognized that moving from Grade 1 to Grade 3 requires different
capacity building and guidelines in comparison to moving from 3 to 4 and beyond.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
Suggested to set minimum standard based on the paragraph 27 (b) of the Sendai Framework.
Please see Appendix C of Technical Collection.
2. Definitions
Lesotho: Since the target speaks of national and local disaster risk reduction strategies, there
is a need to define minimal standards on national and local disaster risk reduction.
81
Netherlands: Target E indicators should mention matters related with goals, for example,
basic services, and people living in vulnerable situations.
Madagascar: Indicators should cover priorities of action.
Inputs by countries:
EC: EC supports establishing a “minimum standard” to fulfill this indicator according to
UNISDR guidelines, e.g. needs to be based on risk information and assessments.
Sweden: Is there a minimal standard for DRR strategies? What does a national DRR strategy
need to include before a country can fulfill these indicators? UNISDR might consider
developing guidelines for national DRR strategies with the help of the Words into Action
working group for this topic.
EC: EC agrees with E3 but its definition should be linked to the outcome of COP 21.
Thailand: Regarding E3, clear definition of CC and DRR is needed, since climate change
mitigation In IPCCC has different meaning from the Sendai Framework.
Sweden: Regarding E4, Sweden thinks it is important to define a standardized list of what
kind of critical infrastructure should be included. It is vital all countries report data in relation
to the same source.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: We agree with
Madagascar’s intervention that we need more details for indicator E1. We recommend that
alongside indicator E1, we not only measure the number of countries adopting and
implementing national DRR strategies, but in addition whether that formulation and
implementation is inclusive, i.e. it is done with participation and decision making from all
stakeholder groups as per stated in the SFDRR.
UNESCAP: Consider inserting definition of strategy as a more conceptual form of plan, e.g.
Disaster risk reduction strategy: A national policy in organizing and marshalling resources for
their most efficient and effective use to reduce disaster risks. It is more likely that local
governments adopt plan to implement national DRR strategies.
UNESCAP: The term resilience in “critical infrastructure protection plan” implies also the
presence of necessary arrangements to restore the function of the infrastructure after the
occurrence of hazardous events, and eventually the reconstruction
82
3. Local government monitoring
India: Local government should be defined as the lowest level government at which planning
takes place.
Egypt: Egypt noted that during the Sendai negotiations, States had discussed the importance
of acknowledging different forms of government.
Nepal: It is better that the local governments align with the national strategy rather than the
Sendai Framework, as the national strategy will be aligned with the Sendai Framework.
India: In order to be in line with Sendai, would local plans developed before Sendai need to
be retrofitted in order to be monitored?
Inputs by countries:
Mexico: Geopolitical configuration should be considered as a normalizer of this indicator, as
it may happen that very small public units do not have a strategy for risk reduction, however
it may exist effectively at a subnational level.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
Local government for monitoring Sendai framework global targets is suggested to define as
“form of public administration at the lowest tier of administration within a given state,
which generally acts within powers delegated to them by legislation or directives of the
higher level of government”.
4. Compliance monitoring
Australia: How to monitor compliance to enforce implementation?
Egypt: Egypt supported Pre-Sendai negotiation’s member states’ reluctance to introduce the
need to monitor levels of compliance that may include any punitive name and shame
process, and suggested the best way is how to encourage countries to develop strategies
and leave it up to them to implement.
Inputs by countries:
Australia: To clarify, Australia was suggesting that countries consider having their own
compliance mechanisms in place to enforce national building codes etc. Compliance should
be up to the individual country to monitor.
El Salvador: You can measure the adoption of programs of work at national and local level –
this is a yes/no question. But whether those programs are implemented is hard to attach a
number to.
83
5. Additional indicators E5-E7 proposed by the Expert Group
Cuba, Czech Republic: The extra proposals E5-E7 are not needed.
Japan: E5 is of value, as it seems to relate to national platforms.
Inputs by countries:
Argentina: Delete E5 and E6.
Czech Republic: Strongly oppose E5, how you qualify for this? What different information it
provides in comparison to E1?
Czech Republic: On E6, how country will qualify for declaring it suits this?
Czech Republic: On E7, who will describe the way of monitoring this? It only burdens states.
6. Other indicators proposed in the 1st OEIWG
Inputs by countries:
• Argentina (Comments for E9): Delete. • Cuba: We consider that proposed indicators B7, C10, D6, D7, D8, D9, E9 and G10 are not
necessary due to several causes. Some of them would reiterate information already given by
other indicators included in the text, which are more accurate; the nature of others does not
comply with the scope of the targets under which they are presented; and a few of them
pretend to gather information that is not necessarily relevant to DRR or that is not available
to developing countries.
7. Additional indicators proposed
Inputs by countries:
Sweden: E1 asks for national DRR strategies and E2 for local DRR strategies. After indicator
E1, it would be interesting to add an indicator asking for regional or sectorial DRR strategies.
8. Other comments
Egypt: In reporting process, it might be difficult to link the different institutions and getting
the full picture and information of what was implemented.
Inputs by countries:
Mexico: It is suggested to retain the first three indicators; we coincide with the Czech
Republic, India and Egypt proposal to eliminate the E4 indicator.
United States of America: We should minimize/simplify the number of proposed indicators
for Target E.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
84
Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: It is important to
measure the contributions of different at risk groups to DRR and management processes. It
is important to incorporate a measure of inclusion within the Sendai Monitoring System.
This can be achieved through identifying/integrating specific markers of inclusion within the
proposed indicators. It is essential to monitor and measure the level of inclusion of DRR in
DRR interventions and policy formulations at different levels (from local to national to
global) and across all targets and goals, either through an integrated framework or as a
separate marker…
UNESCAP: Regarding E6, consider exploring more simplified concept. In its current form, it is
rather inconceivable that LDCs, SIDS, and LLDCs would be able to demonstrate performance
relative to this indicator.
UNMCGY: We support the proposed indicators and target, including inclusion of E 8-10 and
retaining E5 in line with what Japan propose.
Disability Caucus: Indicators must show that the high level of inclusion running through the
Sendai Framework (and the Agenda 2030) is equally or better reflected in national and local
disaster risk reduction strategies. Consider linking with Incheon Declaration Goal 7 “Ensure
disability-inclusive disaster risk reduction and management”.
9.Comments to “Additional Background Documents” on Target E computation methodology
(1) Indicator E1
Inputs by countries:
Netherlands: Netherland preference is for option 2. The global indicator should address
more than only simply counting the number of countries having a DRR strategy, even if it is
only a weak document. The indicators should also address the quality of the DRR strategy in
line with the Sendai Framework, hence an index is needed (progress indicator). Furthermore,
the NL delegation has argued earlier a DRR strategy should be risk-based, comprising all 5
aspects of the Sendai Framework (preventive approaches and action oriented) and
accessible for all actors and the public. For option 2, also a simplified option 2b is being given,
as to address risk based assessments and information. However, the wording of this 2b
option is incomplete. It should contain all wordings of the Sendai Frame (cf. time frames,
targets, indicators, prevention of risk, reduction of existing risk and measures to improve
“inclusive” resilience), and next (b) informed by risk assessment and information. This more
complete option is to be preferred, as to provide an incentive and support more risk based,
85
preventive and inclusive approaches for DRR. The aggregated index is not more complex
than under the former option 2.
(2) Indicator E2
Inputs by countries:
Netherlands: NL prefers option 4. The global indicator should address more than only simply
counting the number of cities/local governments having a DRR strategy, even if it is only a
weak document, and it should also take into account the relative population coverage of
cities of various sizes. In addition, here the same arguments apply as mentioned above for
the country level indicator, see no. 2.3.4, with the following note. For option 2 for Indicator
E-2, also a simplified option 2b is being given. The understanding is this simplified version
would also apply to option 4 and consequently the remarks given under 4. This more
complete option 4 is to be preferred as to provide an incentive and support more risk based,
preventive and inclusive approaches for DRR. The aggregated index is not more complex
than the one under the former option 4.
Netherlands: There is, in most of the countries, a definite link between national level
policies, strategies and action oriented frameworks o the one hand, and local level
contingency plans and associated action oriented frameworks on the other. In the
Netherlands, for example, the national risk profile will build explicitly upon the regional risk
profiles of the 25 safety regions.
86
Target F: Substantially enhance international cooperation to
developing countries through adequate and sustainable support to
complement their national actions for implementation of this
framework by 2030.
(Proposed revision)
Target (f): Substantially enhance international cooperation to developing countries through adequate and sustainable support to complement their national actions for implementation of this framework by 2030
[Chapeau: This indicator directly supports the developing countries’ implementation of the Sendai Framework and the fulfilment of the global goals. (Bangladesh, Egypt)
Input by countries: Delete Chapeau- United States of America, Canada, Sweden
F1 - Level of non-earmarked support provided by developed countries and reported by developing countries. (Bangladesh, Egypt)
Input by countries: [F1 – [Level of/percentage of gross national product that represents the-Argentina] [non-earmarked- Australia delete] support provided by developed countries and reported by developing countries] [F1 - Level of non-earmarked support provided by developed countries and reported by developing countries- United States of America-Delete]
F2 - Number of developed countries having a policy marker as part of the legislation on provisions for support to developing countries to enhance the implementation of the Sendai Framework and the fulfilment of the global goals. (Bangladesh, Egypt)
Input by countries: F2 - Number of [developed countries/countries- Ecuador] having a policy marker [as part of the legislation on provisions for support/to identify the amount of resources and international cooperation-Ecuador] to developing countries [to enhance the implementation of the Sendai Framework and the fulfilment of the global goals/for disaster risk reduction- Ecuador]. [F2 - Number of developed countries having a policy marker as part of the legislation on provisions for support to developing countries to enhance the implementation of the Sendai Framework and the fulfilment of the global goals. United States of America-delete] [Alt F-2: Number of developing countries with explicit policies and/or legislation in place to enhance the implementation of the Sendai Framework.- United States of America]
87
F3- Progress on the implementation of paragraph 47 of the Sendai Framework, in particular subparagraphs 47(a) and 47 (b). (Bangladesh, Egypt, Ecuador, Brazil)
Input by countries: [F3- Progress on the implementation of paragraph 47 of the Sendai Framework, in particular subparagraphs 47(a) and 47 (b).United States of America, Sweden-Delete]
F4 - Progress in using the regional platforms for exchanging experiences and enhancing South-South cooperation for the implementation of the Sendai Framework. (Bangladesh, Egypt) F5 - Level of support provided by international organizations in line with paragraph 48 of the Sendai Framework. (Bangladesh, Egypt)]
Input by countries [F5 - Level of support provided by international organizations, [referring exclusively to the elements of the Sendai Framework which enjoy consensus-United States of America] [in line with paragraph 48 of the Sendai Framework –United States of America, delete]] [F5 - Level of support provided by international organizations in line with paragraph 48 of the Sendai Framework. Sweden-delete]
New indicators proposed by countries
Bolivia:
F6:Annual percentage of cooperation financing for disaster risk reduction
provided by developed countries and received by developing countries,
compared with the economic losses registered in developing countries.
F7:Total amount of funds provided by developed countries to developing
countries to promote development and transfer of ecologically adequate,
appropriate and modern technology for disaster risk reduction
F8:Proportion of cooperation funds for DRR provided by developing countries
and registered in the annual budgets of developing countries.
F9: Estimated proportion of cooperation for DRR covered by indicative
expenditure and/or implementation plans from developed countries for one,
two and three years in advance.
Colombia
F10: National platform for exchange: Number of countries that have a platform
for sharing successful scientific and technological experiences that could be
insightful for other countries.
F11: Regional cooperation: Number of countries with formal mechanisms of
88
regional cooperation or bilateral agreements.
F12: International cooperation: Number of countries that have proceedings for
receiving and officer cooperation in DRR.
Ecuador:
F13: Level of contributions without previous assignment that countries deliver
to UN agencies for supporting developing countries on DRR
Ethiopia
F14: Number of national platforms established and their performance level
(active, not active)
F15: Number and type of capacity development initiatives undertaken by
developed countries as reported by developing nations
F16: Amount of financial support (USD) delivered by developed to developing
countries as reported by recipient countries.
Mexico:
F17: Number of programs in which the country has participated offering
international cooperation
F18: Number of times a country has received international l cooperation
F19: Number of people benefited with international cooperation.
Morocco:
F20: Number of cooperation agreements signed with developing countries to
ensure technical and financial support in order to put in place the Sendai
Framework
F21: Number of funds put in place, regional or international, for supporting
developing countries in the implementation of the Sendai Framework
F22: Total amount of financial funds mobilized for supporting actions in
developing countries for disaster risk reduction.
Trinidad and Tobago
F23: global cost (cumulative) of international cooperation/year/state
F24: % enhancement of DRR programs/year/state
89
(Critical discussion points on Target (f))
1. General comments
Cuba, Indonesia, and Bangladesh: We need to break down the data such as three
categories:1) resources; 2) technology; and 3) training of staff. Disaggregated data is
important to understand who the recipients are as well as type of assistance received.
Brazil: What is important is to measure the level of cooperation, not only the number of
donors.
Colombia: Quantity does not always mean quality. The indicator must measure how
international cooperation will allow a country to implement Sendai. This includes financial
and technical resources to meet all the priorities of the Sendai Framework.
Australia: Agree with Colombia that “Enhance” might not mean increase. Idea of measuring
quality and effectiveness of how international cooperation helps countries trigger their own
resources is good.
Canada: We should look at quality not just quantity.
Bangladesh: The target asks to measure “adequateness” and that the international
cooperation is intended for developing countries.
Indonesia: It is also important to have a system of verification.
India: Specific and easy-to-measure activities include climate forecasting systems, space-
based technologies and information on water basins.
Indonesia: Other types of related assistance, such as post-disaster assistance.
Inputs by countries:
Australia: Indicators should align, to the extent possible, with indicators being developed
against the Partnership for the Goals and Target of the Sustainable Development Goals
(under development). The OEIWG should discuss with the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on
Sustainable Development Goal Indicators as well as the OECD.
Australia: Indicators should aim to capture the key aspects of international cooperation
including financial flows, technical assistance, and policy dialogue.
Australia: Where possible, existing systems should be used to capture relevant ODA flows.
Canada: We recommend that the OEIWG consider the following revisions to the approach
for Target F in particular: (a) Broad scope. Core indicators should encompass all aspects of
international cooperation (e.g. development finance, technical assistance, and policy
dialogue), the variety of sources, alignment with national DRR priorities, and the creation of
90
an enabling environment/favorable policy context domestically. The evolving capabilities of
developing countries and their growing place in the global economy should also be taken
into account: (b) Measurable indicators. Specific, measurable indicators are preferable to
facilitate data collection and quality. For example, delete the Target F Chapeau as an
indicator because it is not technically useful. Provide more specific, measurable language for
indicator F3 and F5: (c) Existing Systems. Existing data systems and mechanisms should be
used to track increased DRR investment, awareness and activity, e.g. OECD-DAC, IATI.
Mexico: We agree with Colombia and Canada. It is suggested to consider qualitative
indicators that assess the quality of cooperation.
Philippines: Include indicators relating to capacity building provided to developing countries
to enhance DRR policy formulation, strategies and implementation of programs and projects.
Sri Lanka: Better not to include loans here as an indicator.
Sri Lanka: It is important to measure the direct support (technical and financial) to
implement the national and local DRR strategies.
Sri Lanka: Better to include an indicator for private sector investment if we want to promote
PPP in DRR (not sure where we can have it); I am sure it will be a challenge for many
countries including Sri Lanka. But this should not be completely ignored.
Sweden: Before quantifying the indicators for Target F, we need to agree what kind of
support we are supposed to measure progress within. One first solution could be to have
checklists with possible support actions and with possibility to comment the action with
qualitative text. For example: sharing of best practices (describe how your country has
shared its best practice and experiences); sharing of methodology guidelines (describe if
your country has any guidelines within DRR that you have distributed to other countries);
exchange of experts (describe in which way your country has participated in any exchange of
expert program); peer review (has your country participated in a peer review to promote
mutual learning and exchange of good practices and information. Describe); technical and
financial support (describe in what way your country has provided technical and financial
support).
Sweden: Regarding Target F, we would like to convey our support to some of the comments
provided by Canada: International cooperation is broader than financial flows, but also
includes activities such as technical assistance and policy dialogue. To this end, we believe
that the indicators should capture all aspects of international cooperation; Indicators should
set out that financing should be mobilized from a variety of sectors and levels with an
emphasis on delivering effective assistance of high quality, e.g. public sector, private sector,
international organizations etc; Target F is meant to capture the corollary national level
91
action (that speaks to the “to complement their national actions for implementing” language
in Target F). As such, we might propose an indicator that measures national level efforts to
creating an enabling environment/favorable policy context domestically for DRR informed
investments. This complements the notion that international cooperation should not
displace national and local action; Specific, measurable language should be used for the
indicators, e.g. deleting the chapeau, deleting those indicators that speak broadly of para 47
and 48 implementation; Because the target is forward looking, the indicators should be
worded to take into account the evolving capabilities of developing countries and their
growing place in the global economy.
United States of America: The US interprets “international cooperation” to include
cooperation between all countries, including between developing countries, and from a
variety of public and private sources. Indicators for Target F should measure cooperation
from a variety of public and private sources and between all countries, including South-
South cooperation and triangular cooperation.
United States of America: International cooperation includes a variety of activities and is not
limited to financial assistance. Indicators for Target F should seek to measure other activities
as well, such as technical assistance and data sharing.
United States of America: It is important that indicators for Target F are specific and
quantifiable. Additionally, indicators for Target should seek to measure quality and
effectiveness as well as quantity; increasing international cooperation does not necessarily
mean that it is being “enhanced”.
Input by non-state stakeholders:
UNMCGY: We support the proposed target and indicators. The majority of proposed
indicators need to be adjusted in order to have a clear proposed objective and variables
proposed to be measured. We support comment from Brazil on cooperation versus donors,
this require more discussion though. We support comment from Canada, Australia and
Colombia, though this require more discussion. We support comment from India and
Indonesia, this require more discussion though.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
Based on the paragraph 19 (m) and 47, it is suggested to categorize international
cooperation into 3 areas: finance, technology development and transfer, and capacity
building. Proposed indicators by the Secretariat are listed in the Background Document
“Concept Note on Indicators for Global Target F”.
92
2. Comments for individual indicators
(1) Chapeau
Inputs by countries:
United States of America: Delete chapeau.
(2) F1
Inputs by countries:
Australia: Suggest deleting “non-earmarked”.
United States of America: Delete indicator F-1. International cooperation includes
cooperation between all countries, including between developing countries and from a
variety of public and private sources. As drafted, Indicator F-1 only addresses one element of
international cooperation. Additionally, the “level” of support does not measure the quality
of funds provided.
Input by non-state stakeholders:
UNMCGY: Indicator F1 requires more clarification.
(3) F2
Inputs by countries:
United States of America: Delete indicator F-2. We cannot accept any markers in legislations,
as that preempts Congressional authority. Instead, we suggest the following alternative
indicator: Alt F-2: Number of developing countries with explicit policies and/or legislation in
place to enhance the implementation of the Sendai Framework.
(4) F3
Inputs by countries:
United States of America: Delete indicator F-3. This indicator is not specific or easily
quantifiable. Regarding paragraph 47 (a) of the Sendai Framework, the United States
supports a broad range of initiatives and mechanisms that provide technical assistance,
including through the transfer of technology, to developing countries. However, we
maintain that the transfer of technology must not be coerced and that the rights of private
holders of intellectual property must not be abrogated, and we reject any suggestion that
the present framework changes the obligations of countries under national law and
relevant international agreements.
93
(5) F4
Inputs by countries:
Australia: Suggest refining this indicator.
(6) F5
Inputs by countries:
Australia: Suggest refining this indicator.
United States of America: Delete or clarify indicator F-5. Greater specificity is needed, as
paragraph 48 of the Sendai Framework includes a number of sub-paragraphs with actions
that will be difficult to quantity and monitor. Suggested edits in the list above.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders:
UNESCAP: Regarding F5, consider including level of support provided by Regional
Commissions in reference to their role as the UN formal intergovernmental forum that
provides an overarching regional framework, which encompasses sectoral and sub-regional
frameworks, under the overall 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
3. Additional indicators proposed
Inputs by countries:
Bolivia:
Annual percentage of cooperation financing for disaster risk reduction provided by
developed countries and received by developing countries, compared with the
economic losses registered in developing countries.
Total amount of funds provided by developed countries to developing countries to
promote development and transfer of ecologically adequate, appropriate and modern
technology for disaster risk reduction
Proportion of cooperation funds for DRR provided by developing countries and
registered in the annual budgets of developing countries.
Estimated proportion of cooperation for DRR covered by indicative expenditure and/or
implementation plans from developed countries for one, two and three years in
advance.
Colombia
National platform for exchange: Is there a national mechanism (e.g. DRR platform) to
improve dialogue and cooperation among scientific and technological communities,
other relevant stakeholders and policy makers in order to facilitate a science-policy
interface for effective exchange with other countries? The proposal of the indicators
94
would be number of countries that have a platform for sharing successful scientific and
technological experiences that could be insightful for other countries.
Regional cooperation: Is the country a formal member of a regional partnership
mechanism for DRR? The proposal of the indicator would be number of countries with
formal mechanisms of regional cooperation or bilateral agreements.
International cooperation: Does the country have formal procedure to receive, offer
and coordinate bilateral and multilateral donor aid, through grants and loans, to
strengthen national capacities in DRR? The proposal of the indicator would be number
of countries that have proceedings for receiving and officer cooperation in DRR.
Ecuador: Support F3, and modify F2. And include
Level of contributions without previous assignment that countries deliver to UN
agencies for supporting developing countries on DRR
Ethiopia:
In order to ground international cooperation, there has to be well established and
actively operating platform at different levels. Among the others, the national platform
is one of the basic. Therefore indicator on this aspect should be tracked. Our proposal:
Number of national platforms established and their performance level (active, not
active)
Most of the time, international cooperation is shown by financial support and capacity
development. Capacity development is wide which comprises training, technology
transfer, strengthen international capacity etc. in the area of DRR. In this regard, our
indicators proposed are : (a) number and type of capacity development initiatives
undertaken by developed countries as reported by developing nations; (b) amount of
financial support (USD) delivered by developed to developing countries as reported by
recipient countries.
Mexico: The following indicators are proposed:
Number of programs in which the country has participated offering international
cooperation
Number of times a country has received international l cooperation;
Number of people benefited with international cooperation.
Trinidad and Tobago: All entities that cooperate with receiving states must necessarily have
a COST for doing so, whatever the resources applied towards DRR. In this regard, one
possible metric should be “the global cost (cumulative) of international
cooperation/year/state” where UNISR or a delegated agency e.g. World Bank etc. is a
clearing house for all donors to submit costs of all interventions per year.
95
Trinidad and Tobago: All states that receive cooperation towards DRR must necessarily
produce reports to state authorities and donor agencies etc. as part of the project
monitoring and target achievements toward a completed phase. Therefore, a cumulative
global indicator can be “% enhancement of DRR programs/year/state”, measured by
quantitative and qualitative. Calculating the project time and the project deliverables
normally stated in the Terms of Reference of all projects. If a project is stated as 18 months
within 300 hours of actual programming and there are six deliverables, it means that at the
end of the project, all DRR projects should increase by 6 and all DRR projects in country and
there is 18 months of DRR activity as a percent of total DRR activity.
Example: Total DRR programming-yearly projections
DRR education-1oo hours
DRR mainstreaming-200 hours
DRR EWS development-100 hours
DRR climate change integration-300 hours
DRR Gender Focus-200 hours
DRR special needs population focus-1oo hours
Total project time for DRR/year in country =1000
Total project time due to international/regional cooperation =300
Enhancement =300/1000 =30%
Or number of DRR projects by state/year =36
Number of DRR projects by cooperation=6
% enhancement in state =6/36 = 17%
Or qualitative
Via surveys/interviews/monitoring/drills/tests etc yearly.
Estimates of the impact of international cooperation in states, e.g. improvement in
tools/toolkits/resiliency etc.
This is just an example that may be used as indicators at global level.
96
Target G: Substantially increase the availability of and access to multi-
hazard early warning systems and disaster risk information and
assessments to the people by 2030.
(Proposed revision)
Target (g): Substantially increase the availability of and access to multi-hazard early warning systems and disaster risk information and assessments to the people by 2030
G1 – Number of countries that have multi-hazard early warning system
Inputs by countries G1 – Number of countries that have multi-hazard early warning system [covering main hazards in the country-EC]
[G2 – Number of countries that have multi-hazard monitoring and forecasting system – Ethiopia, Czech Republic-delete]
Inputs by countries [G2 – Number of countries that have multi-hazard monitoring and forecasting system – Ethiopia, Czech Republic, EC-delete]
G3 – Number of people who are covered by multi-hazard early warning system [per 100,000- Bhutan]
Inputs by countries G3 – [Number of people/percentage of national population – Argentina] who are covered by multi-hazard early warning system
G4 – [Percentage / Number – Cuba; El Salvador, Morocco retain] of local [and national – Bhutan] governments having preparedness plan (including EWS response and evacuation components) or evacuation plan [and standard operating procedures – Tanzania]
Inputs by countries G4 – Percentage of [local/national – United states of America] governments having preparedness plan (including EWS response and evacuation components) or evacuation plan
The US supports preparedness or evacuation plans for national governments that can be downscaled to the local and regional levels, as appropriate and at each country’s national discretion.
G4 – Percentage of local [and national – Bhutan, EC] governments having preparedness plan (including EWS response and evacuation components) or evacuation plan [and standard operating procedures – Tanzania, EC]
G5 – Number of countries that have [multi-hazard national risk assessment/risk information- Bhutan] with results in an accessible, understandable and usable format for stakeholders and people
97
G6 – [Percentage / Number – Cuba; El Salvador , Morocco- retain)] of local governments that have [multi-hazard risk assessment/risk information – Bhutan], with results in an accessible, understandable and usable format for stakeholders and people Other indicators suggested by Expert Group [G7 - Percentage of population with understanding of the risk they are exposed to- Philippines, Czech Republic-delete]
Inputs by countries [G7 - Percentage of population with understanding of the risk they are exposed to- Philippines, Czech Republic, Argentina, United States of America-delete]
[G8 - Number of countries that have national plans with budget and timeline for development of multi-hazard EWS- Philippines, Czech Republic-delete]
Inputs by countries [G8 - Number of countries that have national plans with budget and timeline for development of multi-hazard EWS- Philippines, Czech Republic, Argentina-delete]
[G9 - Number of countries that have disaster loss databases publicly accessible- Philippines-delete]
Inputs by countries [G9 - Number of countries that have disaster loss databases publicly accessible- Philippines-delete; EC-retain]
[G10 - Number of countries that have open data policies and mechanisms to make hazard and risk data accessible and available to all users-Philippines-delete]
Inputs by countries [G10 - Number of countries that have open data policies and mechanisms to make hazard and risk data accessible and available to all users-Philippines, Argentina, Cuba-delete] [G10 - Number of [countries/governments –United States of America] that have open data policies and mechanisms [that do not risk national security or have under economic competing risk – United States of America] to make [relevant natural-United States of America] hazard and risk data accessible and available to all users ]
New indicators proposed by countries [G11- The time lapse between early warning and response- Ethiopia] [G12- Number of informed people about disaster preparedness per 100,000- Sri Lanka] [G13-Number of computer devices and databases shared between developing and developed countries for ensuring the access of information, risk assessments and multi-hazard early warning systems to the population-Morocco]
98
(Critical discussion points on Target (g))
1. Computing methodology (G1)
Ecuador: If the composite measures countries, how come the component indicators are
countries, people and local governments? It is not possible to do the calculation of the
indicator if the variables have different units of measure, in this case number and
percentage, and if the objective is different, in this case it is important to know the number
of countries with EWS but this requires summing local governments and people.
Inputs by countries:
Ecuador: You cannot perform the calculation of an indicator if the variables that compose it
have different units of measures, in this case, we speak of numbers and percentages, and if
you are going to measure different target populations, in this case you need to know the
number of countries with early warning but requires to add local governments and people.
EC: G2 is part of G1 and can be removed.
United States of America: The US supports a more integrated hazard computation
approach that includes primary and induced hazards for best effort to include cascading
events.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
Computation methodology using indexation needs to be developed.
While it is up to the definition of early warning system (EWS), G2 is one of four elements of
EWS ((a)monitoring and forecasting system (G2), (b)risk assessment (G6), (c)
communication and information delivery (G3) and preparedness for response (G4)). G1 will
be headline index summarizing progress of each four element. It is suggested to retain four
elements.
2. Definitions
Czech Republic: Multi-hazard early warning system needs to be defined. It is not only how to
reflect dependencies between hazards but also about technical way of information and
warning dissemination and delivery to users using preferably the united systems, formats,
codes and definitions etc. Definition of EWS is too wide and nearly equal to whole DRM.
EWS is a tool while prevention and preparedness is a different story. EWS is technical ways
to give information to users for all types of hazards. We should first define what we define
under EWS before indicator decisions. Means of information dissemination needs to be
included.
99
Czech Republic: To build EWS (represented in G1), you need monitoring and forecasting
(represented in G2), and means of dissemination of their information (which is not included
in indicators). That means that once you have EWS, you must have monitoring and
forecasting so we think we can directly measure the existence of the whole EWS.
Comments by non-state stakeholders:
UNMCGY: Multi-hazard early warning system: The current definition does not capture that a
MHEWS utilizes "common capacities of systems to prepare for and respond to several
hazards” which will increase the efficiency of the system. Early warning system: Suggest to
include the text underlined “An interrelated set of capacities and processes on hazard
warning generation...” In the comment, we suggest either deleting “and possible scenarios”
or adding clarification on what is meant by a scenario because this term could cause
confusion. Additionally, under 2) the comment should include “the generation of warnings”.
3. Additional indicators G7-G10 proposed by the Expert Group
Philippines, Czech Republic: No need (Philippines oppose all, Czech Republic opposes G7
and G8)
Czech Republic: We support G9 indicator but it is more appropriate in the E indicator group.
Inputs by countries:
Argentina: Delete G7, G8 and G10.
Australia: Indicators should be kept to a minimum. Countries should be encouraged to
qualitatively report on the subjects identified in the additional suggested indicators.
Czech Republic: Strongly opposeG7. Even in case of sampling, who will do (and pay) the
campaign and guarantee the methodology. In this case a scientific view is different from the
practical one.
EC: Some clarification should be provided on how indicator G7 is measured.
United States of America: Delete G-7. “Understanding” is difficult to measure.
EC: Supports G9.
Cuba: We consider that proposed indicators B7, C10, D6, D7, D8, D9, E9 and G10 are not
necessary due to several causes. Some of them would reiterate information already given
by other indicators included in the text, which are more accurate; the nature of others does
not comply with the scope of the targets under which they are presented; and a few of
them pretend to gather information that is not necessarily relevant to DRR or that is not
available to developing countries.
100
United States of America: Retain G-10 with edits. Open data is a top priority for the United
States.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders
UNESCAP: Regarding G-7, consider “having access to EW information and understand the
appropriate response behavior intended by such warning”.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
G7: Technically difficult to measure.
G8: Input for indicator G1.
4. Other comments
• Czech Republic: Why does the G1 propose to measure separately by each hazard?
• Czech Republic: Disagree with Expert Group that it is impossible to measure, as well we do
not see that EW as a localized phenomenon but we see EWs to be clear responsibility of a
Nation or State.
• Czech Republic: G4 and G5 are better placed in Target E. It depends on EWS definition.
Inputs by countries:
Czech Republic: G3-consider to use categorization instead of direct numbers.
Thailand: Specific measures for vulnerable groups to make sure of their accessibility to EWS
are critical to this target. So, it can be added in G3.
EC: Regarding G5 and G6, Some clarification should be provided regarding what “multi-
hazard national risk assessment results understandable and usable for people” is expected
to be.
Mexico: Consider warning systems both supranational and national.
Inputs by non-state stakeholders
Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: It is important to
ensure that inclusion and accessibility is monitored throughout the indicators in Target G.
UNESCAP: Some EWS are regional (cyclone/typhoon, tsunami, earthquake, etc. Countries
may not necessarily ‘have’ EWS but they may have “access to” regional EWS.
UNMCGY: We support the proposed target and indicators.
Disability Caucus: Clarify how ‘access’ in ‘Substantially increase the availability of and
access to multi-hazard early warning systems and disaster risk information and assessments
to the people by 2030’ will ensure access for disproportionately impacted and most at-risk
people, including persons with disabilities.
Disability Caucus: G3 – Indicators detailing numbers of people can be disaggregated by sex,
age and disability following principles above (A & B).
101
Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: G3 needs to
specifically disaggregate who is covered by multi-hazard EWS, and how accessible,
understandable and usable the information is.
Disability Caucus: G4 – Consider re-defining as: Percentage of local governments having
preparedness plan (including EWS response and evacuation components) or evacuation
plan, components essential for most at-risk in population. Alternatively, consider linking
again with Incheon Goal 7 (as above, E).
Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: In addition to
numbers of countries with risk assessment plans in G4, it is essential to include an indicator
measuring proportion of local governments who have included at risk stakeholders in the
formulation and implementation of the plans.
Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: Throughout G, we
must clarify the definition of “accessible, understandable and usable format” should be
expanded to explicitly mention persons with disabilities with “target stakeholders” as it
reflects the spirit of the text, giving examples of different means of conveying into through
EWS (orally, visually etc).
Disability Caucus: G5 – The definition of ‘Accessible, understandable and usable format’
must be expanded to explicitly mention persons with disabilities with ‘targeted
stakeholders’, as it reflects the spirit of the text, giving examples of different means of
conveying info through early warning systems (orally, visually, etc.).
Global network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction: G5 and G6 needs to
include participation of stakeholders in the implementation of national risk assessment
process.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
Disaggregation is surely useful information at country level but it might be technically
difficult at global level.
5. Additional indicators proposed
Inputs by countries:
Ethiopia: In this section, the discussion is more about the setup of EWS and multi hazard
EWS. Early warning and response goes together and should be implemented in a time. Since
timeliness is very important, we should track this situation by our indicator. Our proposed
indicator: The time lapse between early warning and response.
Technical considerations by the Secretariat:
G11 and G12: Technically difficult to measure. G13: Part of Target F?